User talk:Shinkolobwe

Some of the material you included in the above article was copied from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/11/01/science.aaf2649.abstract, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Answer: Thank you for the observation and the remark. I did not make a simple and direct "copy and paste" from the abstract of the paper in Science magazine: I have previously re-edited the text in Notepad before and I also made a citation in quote and in italic to clearly indicate the conclusion sentence of the abstract that was cited "as is". So, my effort of re-edition was probably insufficient, but this reference is certainly worth to be mentioned. I will thus rewrite it completely with my own words. Sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards. Shinkolobwe (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal of new text entirely reformulated:

Dunne et al. (2016) have presented the main outcomes of 10 years of results obtained at the CLOUD experiment performed at CERN. They have studied in detail the physico-chemical mechanisms and the kinetics of aerosols formation. The nucleation process of water droplets/ice micro-crystals reproduced in the CLOUD experiment and also directly observed in the Earth atmosphere do not only involve ions formation due to cosmic rays but also a range of complex chemical reactions with sulfuric acid, ammonia and organic compounds emitted in the air by human activities and by organisms living on land or in the oceans (plankton).^[1] Although they observe that a fraction of cloud nuclei is effectively produced by ionisation due to the interaction of cosmic rays with the constituents of Earth atmosphere, this process is insufficient to attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and Earth magnetosphere.

Best regards Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. Thank you for taking the time to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Merle Randall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free energy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I've just done a major rewrite on Cation-exchange capacity. I was considering incorporating your recent edits on anion-exchange capacity, but the sources I have seen attribute AEC largely to aluminium and iron oxides. A role of silanols at soil-relevant pH would surprise me, since they are normally acidic. Do you have a good reference for the role of silicates? Kyle MoJo (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, sorry to discover lately your message. I will try to find such a reference on anion exchange by silicate, but often anion exchanges occur with layer double hydroxide (LDH). Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Endothelial dysfunction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baseline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thiophene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MSL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salicornia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lignin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Permeability (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I dont think that we have interacted before, and I hope this message isn't inauspicious.

I dont think that phosphonates are used in formulations for superplasticized concrete. I found two recent reviews. Here is a quote from one "The most widely used superplasticizers are: sulphonated melamine for- maldehyde condensate (SMF), sulphonated naphthalene formaldehyde condensate (SNF), modified lignosulpho- nates (MLS) and lignosulphonate (LS), " I am not an expert but my sense is that superplasticizers work as comb-microstructured ionomers.

• Design and function of novel superplasticizers for more durable high performance concrete (superplast project)

By Houst, Yves F.; Bowen, Paul; Perche, Francois; Kauppi, Annika; Borget, Pascal; Galmiche, Laurent; Le Meins, Jean-Francois; Lafuma, Francoise; Flatt, Robert J.; Schober, Irene; et al From Cement and Concrete Research (2008), 38(10), 1197-1209

• A review of cement-superplasticizer interactions and their models

By Mollah, M. Y. A.; Adams, W. J.; Schennach, R.; Cocke, D. L. From Advances in Cement Research (2000), 12(4), 153-161

It is conceivable that one could make such superplasticizers with phosphonates, but presently they are of no commercial value, it appears.

By way of introduction, I occasionally monitor aspects of chemistry in Wikipedia. With best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind message and for the two references on the superplasticizers. My attention on phosphonates was drawn in a Sika data sheet of a concrete retarder I was looking for. Therefore, my search for more information on phosphonates and my contribution to the phosphonate page. I confirm that phosphonates are commercially used as concrete retarder, at least by Sika. I aggree with you that phosphonates are not commercially available superplasticisers, but sometimes, I find research papers on their potential use to fullfill this function. The most performant and most recently commercialised superplasticizer family are the Poly-Carboxylate Ether (PCE): their action mode to increase the dispersion of cement particles is not based on the electrostatic repulsion between clinker mineral/cement particles (as it is the case with melamine sulfonate (SMF) and naphtalene sulfonate, SNF) but is due to the steric effect produced by the lateral chains grafted on their main polymeric skeleton. I have adapted in consequence the section dealing with concrete admixture in the phosphonate page. Superplasticizers is also a field evolving fast and also often covered by industrial secret and intellectual properties. With kind regards Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to the note. Your information (that Sika uses it) sounds good to me, but I would suggest that until the phosphonate usage is in a review or a book, its mention based on primary literature risks being overspecialized. Apologies if my views seem skeptical or harsh.

In any case you seem to understand the area better than I do with regard to the mechanism of the superplasticizer effect. I was just looking into the ingredients from broad sources (per WP:SECONDARY).

If I get some time, I might try to incorporate the above list/reviews on typical superplasticizers into superplasticizer. I dont know if there is an article on cure retarders. I am pretty distracted for the next day or so.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Groundwater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sewer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fenton's reagent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free electron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clinker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glycosidic bond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alkali–silica reaction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rosette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting and helpful discussion onto silica and silicic acid between User:Petergans, Lecturer in inorganic chemistry at Leeds University in 1964-2003 and User:Jorge Stolfi, professor of computer science at the State University of Campinas, Brazil.

I stumbled upon this discussion after one of my (small) edit was reversed by User:Petergans. Their respective talk pages and discussions are worth to be read.

Discussion onto silica and silicic acid recopied in the section hereafter pro memoriam in case no longer available. Shinkolobwe (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Source of this discussion: User_talk:Petergans#Silicic_acid_deletion

The file File:EDTA Molecule.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Author answer

I think it was one of the first images I created myself with Pymol (or equivalent) and uploaded on Wikipedia when I started to contribute in 2007. I am aware it is certainly not the best way to illustrate the structure of EDTA molecule, which can explain why this image is remained so long unused and orphan.

Except a sentimental attachment for my beginning works at Wikipedia in 2007, I have no objection to clean up around here and to delete this file. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't add links to machine-generated articles, they don't qualify as reliable sources. It's like adding a link to a Google search. Nemo 11:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The article ITZ (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphan disambiguation page whose nav function is handled by hatnotes

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JHunterJ (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ITZ (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITZ (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: Hello, I have just seen your message. Thank you for informing me. I looked to the changes you made to the page, coming nearly back to the ancient version made just after the page creation. You have seen that I tried to find other meanings for ITZ (https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ITZ) that you have not accepted. In the meantime, I have seen your hat notes and the redirect you created which are also doing properly the job. I cannot add anything else more. So, I let now the debate open to you and other contributors, or patrollers, such as User:Atlantic306 for the final decision. The best is to conform to common sense and Wikipedia spirit and policy: it has to be useful and relevant while avoiding to create useless ballast for the database and the servers. Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As pointed out, see MOS:DABACRONYM. Wikipedia disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia topics that could be referred to by the ambiguous title as indicated by the topic articles' text. They do not index the Free Dictionary (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary) or any other websites. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waterfall (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horsetail Falls.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed your paragraph of analysis at Heather Willauer because you violated WP:No original research by sharing your own thoughts. In any case, the manufacture of jet fuel at sea to supply the aircraft is a completely different problem than various methods of ship's propulsion. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet:. This discussion is now closed here. Sorry, but I have no more time to develop the discussion here and as you already read it, I think it is better to directly continue on the talk page of Heather Willauer. I have not modified the present discussion since 16 July 2021. It is thus unchanged and does not require a new reading: this is thus the final post. Due to unexpected circumstances outside Wikipedia and lack of time, I will not be active on Wikipedia for some times. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet. Thank you for your remark. I suggest to continue our discussion on the Talk page of Heather Willauer, so that other contributors could also benefit from it and understand the situation. My formulation was probably not the most adapted, but I do not think to have violated the "No original research" rule of WP. Let me provide you some explanations for the reason of this edit. When making rudimentary calculations on the back of an enveloppe, you immediately realize that the challenges that the project is facing are considerable. I do not say that they are insurmountable, but they are serious. The technique has the merit that it could already be deployed on-shore on remote naval bases and it is already a positive point that I clearly acknowledge.

I also first focused on the nuclear aircraft carriers of the Nimitz and Gerald Ford classes. They are respectively equipped with two:

• A4W reactor: 550 MW_th, and 100 MW of electricity, plus shaft horsepower (2 × 104 MW);^[1]
• A1B reactor: 700 MW_th (25% more than provided by the A4W), and 125 MW of electricity, shaft horsepower (2 × 130 MW).^[2][3]

When looking to the number provided by Heather Willauer, the production of 100 000 gallons of jet fuel per day requires at least 200 MW_e. It means, the electrolyser cells would consume more than all the electricity produces by the two A4W reactor of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and most of the electricity of a A1B reactor of a Gerald Ford class Carrier (250 MW on 260 MW). So, there is no energy left for feeding the ship electric systems and the electromagnetic aircraft launch system. The only way to produce such a quantity of jet fuel would be to recover electricity from another source and then probably to directly affect the naval propulsion which is certainly not wished. An alternative would be to synthesize a smaller quantity of jet fuel on the fraction of electricity still available on board. This would probably lower the expectations, but it would still be better than not to dispose of fuel in case of necessity on an aircraft. So, everything depends on the daily consumption of fuel by the airplanes.

About the jet fuel used for naval propulsion, the idea is not from me but from the media I just cited in the section you removed. This media inspired my edit and I substantiate the text from it even if it was not so clear for you. I should have formulated the text in a clearer manner without giving the perception to the reader of a personal point of view. I will try to reformulated that more correctly.

Indeed, the way the page was presented looked quite promotional and delivered to the reader the message that all problems were solved, or at least solvable in a relatively short term (i.e., during this decade 2020), what is likely not the case. Such a message based on the belief that technology can solve any problem is misleading for the audience and for the media. Some media were clearly abused in this direction. All the information necessary to make simple mass balance and energy budget calculations dealing with this problem is available on Wikipedia. Using this easily accessible information is not original research: it is simply thinking in a rational and critical way. Just what is expected from all Wikipedia contributors to avoid to diffuse unproven and misleading information and to avoid to abuse the credulous readers. One has to be open for new ideas, but at the same time also remaining critical. Both attitudes are not mutually excluding, in fact, they are complementary and both are absolutely needed.

Moreover, the page contained factual errors, as, e.g., confusing the cation-exchange membranes used in water electrolysis to produce hydrogen and the Fe-catalyst used in the Fischer-Tropsch process.

I also observed that you reverted other edits which were correct, as, e.g. the value of the pH of seawater. Seawater pH is in the range 7.8 – 8.2. It is lowered inside the anodic compartment and no pH < 6 is needed from the acidified seawater in the ocean.

Anode (oxidation): 2 H
₂O → O
₂ + 4 H⁺
+ 4 e^– (acidification of water)

Cathode (reduction): 2 (2 H
₂O + 2 e^– → H
₂ + 2 OH⁻
) (alkalisation of water)

Sum of the two reactions: 6 H
₂O → O
₂ + 2 H
₂ + 4 H
₂O

Global net reaction: 2 H
₂O → O
₂ + 2 H
₂

It is the reaction occurring at the anode responsible for the oxidation of the oxide anion (O²⁻
) in water that releases the protons ( H⁺) needed to locally acidify seawater in the anodic compartment and wich allows to outgas CO₂ from seawater at pH < 6: HCO^–
₃ +  H⁺ → H
₂CO
₃ → H₂O + CO₂

So, why did you reverted the edit made by 59.100.68.246 on 00:36, 29 March 2016 : Revision as of 01:00, 29 March 2016 and adding again the following erroneous information:

", if they are sailing in mildly acidic seawater."

The present pH of seawater is not lower than 6: it is still between 7.8 and 8.1. If the seawater pH was < 6, most of the CO₂ would already be spontaneously outgassed as it is done in the modified electrolysis cell.

Similarly, about the use of jet fuel: indeed one first thinks to airplanes as I also spontaneously first did but Szondy (2012)^[4] writing for GizMag mentioned ships propelled by a gas turbines fed by jet fuel. So, it is not an invention of my own and Szondy (2012) also asked the question of the source of energy necessary to make the synfuel. This is also suggested by a sentence you added yourself: "a plausible first step of implementation would be...", so what is the next step for the US Navy? Perhaps Navy ships powered by jet fuel? See the sentence hereafter:

Revision as of 06:36, 18 June 2014 (nuclear aircraft carriers)

Because the process requires a large input of electrical energy, a plausible first step of implementation would be for American nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (the Nimitz-class and the Gerald R. Ford-class) to manufacture their own jet fuel.^[5]

One can hope decisive progress will be achieved soon by this technology, but it has to concretize in the reality, so better to be more prudent and to adopt a little bit more skeptical attitude than to make the unconsidered promotion of the project by confusing "obtaining fuel from seawater" with "fuel at sea" as too many media suggested in 2012. This weakens the project in place to support it and it triggered my edit simply based on common sense and simple math that anybody can make himself on the back of an enveloppe without being taxed of original research violation.

Understand me properly: I have nothing against the project, at the contrary: it is a fantastic project and I also wish it succeeds, but the future will tell us if it is the case or not. I lacked time to search more recent reliable sources of information on the topic, but old promotional buzz in the media is not sufficient to convince the reader of the feasibility of the project. So, if you are familiar with the topic, I suggest to add more recent and reliable information on the progress of this process to synthesize jet fuel from seawater. Recent references would be more relevant and appropriate than old references of 2010 no longer accessible (error 404: |url-status=dead; dead link). It would be appreciable and appreciated. Kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Dow Breweries into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. eviolite (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eviolite: Thank you for this tip I did not know. It is indeed a good practice that I will follow and apply when needed. In fact, I first copied the content of a section from Cobalt poisoning#Beer drinker's cardiomyopathy to Beer chemistry in order to create a new section on Beer chemistry#Foam stability as a primer paragraph (with good references) that I continued to modify afterwards in a notable way to explain the mechanism of cobalt cation in the beer foam stability. I did not visit the page Dow Breweries that I was even not aware of. So, there was also another former copy between Cobalt poisoning#Beer drinker's cardiomyopathy and Dow Breweries, but I ignore in what direction exactly. I will put a message on the talk pages dealing with cobalt poisoning and beer foam stabilizer. Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eviolite: Voilà, it is done on the source and the destination pages:

Copied text attribution.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Cobalt poisoning#Beer drinker's cardiomyopathy was copied or moved into Beer chemistry#Foam stabilizers with [1047170019 this edit] on 2021-09-29. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the previous copy, just found the Dow Breweries page when googling. Typically the way you'd do it is to add an edit summary when copying and then put the notice at the top of the page, but for now what you've done is fine. Thanks for the understanding! eviolite (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shinkolobwe, I noticed you recently edited this article. Any clue as to why the pageviews have spiked in the last day or so? Previously it was consistently around 500-1,000 but now at 25,000. Just curious. S0091 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@S0091: Thank you for your question. The answer is sad: it is because of the very sad news of the death of Rayan Oram in Morocco yesterday. This 5 year-old Moroccan boy died Friday, or Saturday, after accidentally falling into a 30 m depth and narrow (Ø = 45 cm) water well on Tuesday, February 1st, 2022. The Moroccan rescue team worked very hard without interruption during 5 days and dug the ground with bulldozers and then finally by hand to a depth of 30 m. They recovered the body of Rayan on Saturday evening, yesterday. Until the last moment, one hoped the little boy was alive, but he succumbed some hours before the rescuers were able to reach him. In Europe, this tragic accident received much attention in the media. You can note that I added a link to the page dealing with this tragedy in the "See also section" of the Rescue of Jessica McClure. Fortunately, Jessica McClure fell to a lower depth (6.7 m) in a cased well and it was possible to save her life. Sorry for this sad news, Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sad indeed, Shinkolobwe. Poor little boy. Oh and for the family and rescuers. Yeah...sad. Thanks for response. S0091 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Posidonia Shale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biota.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Shinkolobwe! I recently put up a draft for HB Antwerp and thought you might be interested given your work on the Sewelo article. If you have a moment to look at it, I would greatly appreciate your feedback. Thank you, Margxx (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Margx.

Thank you for your message and your request.

I remember that I have edited the Sewelo diamond page nearly two years ago.

I am not a specialist in the field of diamonds, but two years ago, I stumbled upon an article in BBC News and in the Guardian about the Sewelô stone. I was amazed by its black colour and its size. I have worked over radiation-induced paramagnetic centers in minerals and the colour of the stone spiked my interest and triggered my edit.

I also have always been fascinated by the mysterious way nature and geology can produce diamonds in kimberlite chimney at great depth by explosive ascending phenomena where diamonds can be found close to fossils in the same piece of rock.

So, I am a simple Wikipedian. I looked at your user page where you disclosed your relationship with the company HB Antwerp for which you are also working. It is a good practice to have done that, and I congratulate you for that: honesty, transparency, and traceability are essential, especially on Wikipedia, as in the normal life. A suggestion would be to also disclose your affiliation in the Discussion page (Talk page) of the page when you upload it to Wikipedia. It will then be reviewed by some administrator and it is important that she/he realizes this point from the start.

After reading your draft, my feeling is that the tone of the page is still too promotional and too focused on economical and financial aspects. I suggest you to simplify the text and to remove all the elements resembling advertising. If the page is factual and sober, it would better correspond to the spirit of Wikipedia and better convey information useful for the reader.

I ignore your real objectives and intentions, or those of your company mandating you to write this page, but I would distinguish several possible audiences for your page:

1. people in the field of your activity such as collaborators, suppliers, contractors, partners and customers, but they already know you and can better directly have a look on the web page of your company;

3. business and commercial, financial people;

4. students candidate for the HB Academy: so potential future collaborators and new colleagues;

5. general users of Wikipedia intrigued by the company name or eager to learn something new on diamond cutting and polishing technologies. Reader with scientific and technical interest like "geeks".

Personally, I put myself in the last category (5) and I would expect to learn something general, but interesting, on the techniques developed by your company: machine learning applied to diamond cutting, cutting technologies with laser, laser scan to identify and locate flaws in the gemstones... and possibly with nice illustrations previously uploaded onto the Commons.

The most important is to respect the objectives and the spirit of Wikipedia: to openly share information and knowledge to construct an open, reliable, and worth of trust, encyclopedia: honest, objective, factual and traceable (verifiability!). If your company could release freely accessible photographs under the Creative common licence to illustrate your activities, works, skills, and to educate people, it would be very appreciated. If you provide the stuff to write upon, Wikipedian will continue to contribute to make a nice page.

In other words, if you behave in a disinterested and open way, the proposed page has more chance to develop by its own. If the page has commercial objectives and is promotional, its chances to grow are limited.

As in the theory of crystal growth, so important for natural and synthetic diamonds, there is two steps on Wikipedia in the life of a young page: nucleation and growth, or initiation and propagation. You are presently working in the very first step: nucleation, initiation. Small nuclei dissolve quickly and feed large nuclei who have more chance to further grow. So, to be successful, you need a nice nucleus with a good shape sufficiently developed to further grow. Purity is also essential in crystal growth. If your page is nice and modest, it will give Wikipedian the desire to continue to develop it. Also avoid supersaturation of the crystallization medium if you wish to grow a large diamond. The most important is to provide food for writing (i.e., open access material) and time to the page to develop.

Voilà for some ideas first coming into my mind.

Practical suggestions

Avoid the too commercial and business wordings, such as:

• The company controls its entire production chain
• stated objectives,
• sales,
• share revenues from the sale of
• breaking with the traditional model
• based incubator supporting female-led innovation
• announced a partnership
• owner of Signum, a brand which sells customized

Do not try to impress the reader, but do your best to communicate relevant and appropriate information. Be simple. Be humble. Remove what is not necessary. Follow the quote attributed to Antoine de Saint Exupéry: You have achieved perfection in writing not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away.

In the company infobox, it would be preferable to omit the "key persons": they are the same as the founders. It is redundant. The company is young (founded in 2020) and to my knowledge the founders are not famous people, or if it is the case, it is in a very small circle. Do not try to promote them: it will have just the opposite effect.

When looking at the references, there also seems to have a general bias: all the press articles are complimentary and praise the company. Most of the articles are also from newspapers. The feeling is that all these references are promotional. Does it exist other references from professional journals providing more neutral information on the company activities? Such as, e.g.: HB Antwerp Opens Diamond Training Academy". National Jeweler. July 16, 2021.

To adopt a more encyclopedic tone, also avoid slang and undefined abbreviations:

AI: —> artificial intelligence (AI)

NFT: —> Non-fungible token (NFT)

cryptoart... ???

STEM: —> Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

Always, define the abbreviations at their first occurrence.

Voilà for some technical details and suggestions to improve the draft of your page.

Welcome on Wikipedia. Please, also visit if you have not already done it: Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/1.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and the community constantly strives for accuracy. Articles should be neutral and should contain only verifiable information and opinions that already exist in reliable sources. No original research also means that articles may not contain previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, opinions, or theories."

I wish you a successful writing and a nice page.

Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits on sulfur concrete. I would just like to note that it's not necessary to write the chemical formulas after the name of each substance, unless there may be possible ambiguity. See for example WP:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry#Sample_images. E.g. for atmospheric oxygen (O₂) it isn't required to write the formula, whereas in the case of iron oxide, obviously it can refer to different formulas, so in that case it may be relevant to write out the formula. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pieceofmetalwork: Hello, thank you for your comment and your reaction to my last edits on sulfur concrete. I agree with your remark and I have simplified the sentence you mentioned with atmospheric oxygen as example. The chemistry of sulfur, a redox-sensitive element with multiple valences and a trends to concatenation, can be complicate: that is why I started adding unusual chemical formulas (thiosulfate and tetrathionate) and probably also extended my zeal to more trivial substances. I aggree that it is better to remain as simple as possible: KISS principle; Keep It Simple Straithforward (or Stupid). Less is more. But it also depends on the audience and this factor was uncertain for me with this topic: a mixed audience of civil engineers in construction, material scientists, and chemists. Not everyone is familiar with the field of others. :-) Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moab Fault, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indicator.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear Shinkolobwe,

I see you are interested in technical subjects and you contributed to Concrete.

Would you maybe be inclined to contribute to the discussions concerning the arrangement of the categories on concrete on Wikimedia Commons which JopkeB lists on my talk page.

We are in need of a native speaker with some insight into the matter as currently me as a German, JopkeB from the Netherlands and a Portugese user are struggling with the correct terminology.

thank you very much for you attention,

KaiKemmann (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear KaiKemmann,

Thank you very much for your message and your invitation to participate to the arrangement of the categories on concrete on Wikimedia Commons. I would be pleased to support your initiative and effort but I am presently very busy assisting another contributor to achieve a page of quality on the French Wikipedia. My former professional experience lead me to study concrete and cements in the frame of radioactive waste disposal. I am fluent in the scientific English used in the concrete industry, but not a native speaker as my mother language is the French. I will see what I can do when I will have more available time. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you added a list to the List of people who disappeared mysteriously at sea, good job! I was wondering if you could help me add some entries to lists, as well as create infoboxes as I am swamped with editing and would be very thankful for any help that I could get. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello@Davidgoodheart: Thank you for your message and this kind invitation to add some entries to lists, as well as to create infoboxes. After adding one person disappeared at sea on this list, I cleaned the page by formatting several parts of text aggressively displayed in "ALL CAPS" in the references in "Sentence case", or "Title Case", more appropriate formats, as I am systematically doing when I encounter this type of poorly formatted text on Wikipedia pages. I am not particularly specialised in this type of list and I never created infoboxes, nor templates. If I can help you, I will do it gladly, but for the moment I am also overwhelmed by many tasks. Have a nice day. With kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Suntooooth. I noticed that you have been adding short descriptions to articles. However, the short descriptions you added are too long to be effective, such as at Incompatible element. The guideline is that short descriptions should ideally be under 40 characters long, and no longer than needed. For more information, see the short description guidelines. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Suntooooth: Thank you for your comment and recommendations. I totally agree with these. However, sometimes one stumble upon difficult cases just as this of "Incompatible element" where a too short and too vague description such as "Type of chemical element" was meaningless and did not help the reader at all. Sometimes, it is even quasi a replicate of the page title. Everything is a question of balance between concision and usefulness. For "Incompatible element", I have seen your recent modification, "Element that is incompatible with its environment", but to be more specific for mineralogy, why not to try: "Element not easily hosted in a crystal lattice". Indeed, I totally agree that "less is more" and the exercice can be difficult and often requires thoughtful iterations and exchanges with other contributors. With kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Your suggestion of "Element not easily hosted in a crystal lattice" is great and would work perfectly. The main issue with long short descriptions is that after 40 characters they become truncated in some common contexts (like the "related articles" section at the bottom of mobile view), so it's best to keep it below that if possible, and definitely under 80 characters (if it's above 100 characters it gets put into a maintenance category). I tried my best with the replacement of "Element that is incompatible with its environment" but I don't have any technical knowledge of the subject, so your suggestion is a lot better. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Suntooooth: Thanks a lot for your kind answer and the technical tips about the "related articles" section at the bottom of mobile view when the page is seen on a smartphone. I should also control the short descriptions on my smartphone too, but most of my edits are done from a notebook. Kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited IOS 17, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SoC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Green rust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion, or advertising again, as you did at Withania somnifera, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. New Chapter is a commercial spam website, filled with misinformation. Please read WP:MEDRS.

MDPI is a predatory publisher - the source used in this case, PMID 37111543, is also misinformation. It is not a clinical MEDRS source providing mainstream evidence of health effects. Zefr (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Zefr: Thank you for your message and this warning I did not absolutely anticipate. This answer, just to clarify these two edits. I am absolutely not intended making soapboxing, promotion or advertising, especially concerning this substance, which is awfully advertised on social networks and abuses the credulity of consumers. At the contrary. Yesterday, I read a warning of a Belgian consumer magazine (Test-Achat) in French about the danger of the product and I edited the French page on Wikipedia which had a terribly promoting tone for the dubious commercial dietary supplements to emphasized the lack of benefit and the undesirable effects of this substance. In the Test-Achat magazine, they mentioned two possible interpretations for the meaning of this Sanskrit name. The intention of my edit was only to provide the second possible meaning, not to advertise the product that I do not want to promote, at the contrary. The first time I directly added the second possible explanation about the Sanskrit name without any reference, and after you revert (Rfv - unsourced) (Rfv: Requests for verification), I rephrased it adding three references mentioning the possible origin of an alternative meaning. Sorry for the poor quality of these references and the unintentional side effects. My only aim was to source this alternative meaning, not to advertise dubious commercial preparations extracted from this plant.

My starting reference written in French mentioning the two possible meanings of the Sanskrit name is :

"L'Ashwagandha est-elle vraiment un remède miracle ?" [Is Ashwagandha really a miracle cure?]. Testachats (in French). 2025-07-28. Retrieved 2025-08-04.

Unfortunately, I could not directly find secondary references in this Testachats article, but the alternative explanation seemed me to make more sense that the first one, with unfortunately the overlooked disadvantage that it sounds like promoting the commercial products popular on the social networks which have no demonstrated benefits for the human health and undesirable effects. There you have it, those are my explanations. Sorry for any inconvenience caused by my two edits.

Thank you for keeping on eye on this page and guaranteeing the quality of the information delivered by Wikipedia. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed the section. You can't trust that it accurately reflects the sources if your just copy-pasting it from another article. It also is bloated and the cites are not properly formatted. LittleJerry (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @LittleJerry: I did not just copy-pasted this section from another article from the French Wikipedia page without verification. For the sake of traceability and by honesty, I mentioned it in the comment of my first edit. In fact, I am also the author of this section, both in the French and English languages, I started to write myself in the French language first, with my own words. Then, I translated it from the French to the English and except for the more recent and main reference (Roberson et al., 2025), I adapted the references as a function of the language I used. I also used the Wikipedia template {{Cite journal} to format most of the references, except one for which, it was not possible to fetch it directly, and as it was late I did not immediately adapted it with a template {{Cite journal}. Another user (Dyanega) also interacted on the section during my edits and added useful references. He was cautious and mentioned that this fluorescence could simply be an artefact from chemical products used in museum to preserved the bat specimens.

"Other studies, however, have noted that museum specimens of bats are known to glow green, even when live or frozen specimens of the same species do not glow, suggesting that the phenomenon may be an artifact of the techniques used to dry specimens for museum storage".

I found its contribution was worth and I thanked him.

Your comment explaining the reasons for which you deleted this new section on photoluminescence was:

"Too bloated and poor formatting. Just summarize it in a couple sentences please".

The section was maybe too long and certainly perfectible, but last week, many media such as the New York Times made a buzz about the supposed bat photoluminescence, so I think many readers could be inclined to search more information on Wikipedia.

As I suppose you are following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD), I will follow your advice and summarize it in a shorter way, but later. Sorry for the length of my answer triggered by this unexpected revert and possible misunderstanding. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay. How about rewriting it and summarizing it in a couple sentences? Maybe use your sandbox. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, it's well written. The essence is captured in three sentences and no more than three lines, with the two most relevant references included. Clear and concise. Well done. 🙂 Shinkolobwe (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slickwater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross-linking.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anoxic waters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)