Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 3 July 2009

Plastic deformation in solids

Plastic deformation in solids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(1) there are already articles deformation (engineering) and deformation (mechanics) waiting for being merged, we hardly need a third, disconnected article. (2) unencyclopedic. (3) this is a one-man show and likely to remain so. (4) the material inserted here has previously been deleted from other pages, see the ongoing discussion on Talk:Glass Transition.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Too early by far for considering deletion The article has clearly been made up substantially of material deleted from other pages as you note - but that is not a valid reason per se for deletion. This is one of those very few cases where WP:PRESERVE has any validity. Does it need extensive work? Yep. Again not a reason per se for deletion. "Already articles" would apply if the information were in those article -- the first has a very cursory treatment of plastic deformation, the second none at all. Thus this article clearly stands apart from those two cited as reasons to delete this one. Is the article ill-written as it stands? Yep. Is that, per se, a reason for deletion? Nope. Is the topic notable? Clearly yes, as it is not claimed as a reason for deletion and the putative number of cites to be properly added is huge. "One man show" is not a valid reason for deletion. Most articles up for a total of a single day are "one man shows" and this is an extraordinarily weak argument for deletion. In short, no reason properly furnished for deletion. Collect (talk)

  "Is the article ill-written as it stands? Yep." All right, let's focus on that. In my view, and from my experience with the other contributions of this one man, I think the current article is uncurably ill-written. Uncurable, because as soon as you try to remove paragraphs that are off topic, or as you try to replace sections by a more concise summary and a few links to relevant articles, you will inevatably run into an edit war as I did on glass transition. Therefore it is preferable to slowly collaborate on stubs like the two existing deformation articles, instead of accepting in bulk a valueless and uncurable contribution like the present one. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  "Valueless" ?? "Uncurable" ?? How in God's name can that possibly be considered as constructuve input here ?? And who made you the new judge, jury and executioner of anything I have ever contributed to on Misplaced Pages ? What have YOU contributed here, except unending insults and slander to me personally ? -- logger9 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  May I ask everyone to behave civil and to stop personal accusations here and on other WP pages. There are WP (conflict resolution) pages specifically devoted to that. Forgive my boldness, but I strike through offense. Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, too early. The article is one day old, meaning you need arguments comparable to speedy deletion to bring it here. Yes, looks like a dumped text, but this means nothing as many editors write off-line (i.e. not in sandboxes) first. The author has been cooperative these days, and I do hope he will make this article readable. Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  The user has been cooperative these days ?? He has been invited to defend his contributions on Talk:Glass transition - instead, he declares that he is fed up with having to defend himself, and that he prefers working on "on a new article" - this one. He has been given advise by several of you how to write in a way more compatible with what WP intends to be - yet he re-pastes his old stuff literally, including absurdities like

  "Mechanisms of attenuation of high-frequency shear and longitudinal waves were considered by Mason and his coworkers at Bell Labs with viscous liquids, polymers and glasses. The subsequent work of Litovitz, et al. in the Physics Department of The Catholic University of America led to an entirely new interpretation of the glass transition in viscous liquids in terms of a spectrum of relaxation phenomena occurring over a range of time and length scales." -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  I am truly curious why this "predator editor" who doggedly follows and openly attacks every syllable of every word that I print on Wiki beleieves this paragraph to be "absurd " ???? -- logger9 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  For an encyclopedia, this is an absurd paragraph. You say you are an associate professor at a four year college. Do you teach any courses related to this? Please try to write texts for a general audience. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Are you familiar with this work ? Have you read these stacks of papers, and thoroughly reviewed them ?? And if not, then who are you to judge ??? -- logger9 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  It's excessive to have 23 sources for a single 2-sentence paragraph in any piece of writing. I assume this is what the other editors above are getting at. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Gotcha. Will edit accordingly. Thank you !-- logger9 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Regarding the above quote, I did and do urge Logger9 to (i) avoid potential promotion ("at Bell Labs" etc.), (ii) avoid excessive referencing in his every article, not only this one. (iii) try to write for general audience. My first attempts aimed at getting rid of wrong statements. This does not mean the author should keep the complex and obscure writing style. This problems does remain. Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep but move to Plastic deformation. Plastic deformation is different than regular old deformation. -RunningOnBrains 15:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  "Plastic deformation" is certainly the better lemma - but do not move, please, before consensus is reached about deletion - otherwise it becomes too confusing. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a copyright violation, some section of some academic paper starting with unlinked footnote numbers starting at . /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  The article will be fully referenced as soon as the edit freeze is released on "glass transition" and I can access my original text. All of it was written by me. There is no copyright violation. You will find this amount of collected literature compiled nowhere else. It took me literally years of time in the UW Physics Library ot put it all together. Feel free to try and find it all compiled in this form elsewhere. You will be wasting your time. -- logger9 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)\

  That same text is here. You are trying to circumvent an administrator's measure. That is a good reason to delete this copy (and maybe also to block you for disruptive behaviour). The text you put here is about glass transitions, not about deformations of solids. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment what is stopping you accessing the text of Glass transition? Click here and access away.  pablo_hablo. 22:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Science and technology)
• AfD debates