User talk:Cfmd

Welcome...

Hello, Cfmd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

Allan variance project
See User:cfmd to find my project statement. This covers so far Allan variance, modified Allan variance and time deviation articles and more articles to be created. Cfmd (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Time deviation


The article Time deviation has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No references at all

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Toxic Waste  Grounds  09:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed the deletion tag after adding a reference definition Time variance and Time deviation. This reference was scheduled to this article anyway and available on the referenced Allan variance article. I consider the remove tag premature and no longer valid. Will include references to all new pages I create since otherwise they will be deleted before I have a chance of adding material. Cfmd (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Allan variance
This might help:

I can understand that topic but I haven't really read the article - all my changes were on formatting, which did need some work - no deletion. I have missed the deletion by an IP before my edits, but I believe you have restored that. There is no easy way around, but just manually re-add the deleted material. It is a good article, that is why I started brushing it up in the first place. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that there where brushing up to be done, and you did certainly address a number of such issues. You caught me in a bad moment. The single thing that I did not directly agree with was on the conventions restructuring, where a small discussion would have been appreciated. Everything else seems like very reasonable edits for improving the state, for which I am great-full, and do not want it to come out in any other way.


 * As I am still in the build-up phase as well as learning (I am always learning), my focus have been on adding good info, present it in a nice manor and provides alternative approaches to the material. I have still not reached my goals for content, several important aspects needs to be covered. Essentially, I want the real research articles to be referenced, useful standard and educational resources be there, and essentially every statement to be well founded through a supporting reference. For the project at hand, this is the introductory article, and definitions, supporting definitions, conventions, background, research will be used and later extended in other articles. They shape the field for which there doesn't seem to be a matching project or category. Many thanks for the help and kind words. Regards Cfmd (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, some of my formatting is drastic and quick - my schedule dictates that. Please do not hesitate to point to problems or ask questions - I am efficient in answering and undoing my changes. Referencing is an important point. Where possible, please use on-line, preferably secondary sources (google books, reviews) - it is easy to link them and the reader can dig into details when necessary. Even if not on-line, books and refereed journals are preferred for the sake of skeptical minds. Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the conventions section, the sub-section titles allowed a very quick way of identifying where each such term was defined as well as it allowed for clear separation of the text. They eye has less "support" in the structure the way you have formatted it, which requires more detailed reading. The small dots does not help, it does not provide a structure similar to the comments here for instance. White the sub-section titles may be a bit ugly, they provided better and clearer structure, which is needed when you are trying to skip up there and ask "what as N about now again?". I was moving away from "block of text" to achieve ease of navigation.
 * You will notice that most of my in-line references is to online material. However, the Wikipedia guides isn't up to date with just what kind of material is online. Today properly peer-reviewed and published scientific research articles can be found online, and in fact most of the relevant articles is online for free in this case. Some will not be available for free, but may exist in the IEEE UFFC or IEEE Xplorer archives. My preference is to reference the actual articles, and so far most of it is simply available. I use the background, research history and educational material sections to put these texts into context. Many of the books and educational material will reference these research articles anyway, unless they reference some standard or educational material which reference the research articles. If I can make the actual material referenced, then I do that. If it is not in the open or a useful summary is available, I reference that. Regardless, I try to make it easy to verify against the sources. Minor adaptations for consistent presentation have been done, as the preference have and is changing after 40-50 years down the line. In the end, I think I summarize things which few contemporary educational resources mentions. Cfmd (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, most references in Allan variance are accessible and my comment went somewhat astray. I hesitated quite a bit before removing the subsections in "Conventions", as I saw the conveniences you've wrote above, but. Wikipedia style manuals do discourage single-line sections. Thus the bullets can change to # or ;Title or other, catchier pointers, but I would avoid short subsections there (Table of content was also quite long because of that). Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if you and User:Michael_Hardy could discuss the - vs. – convention on the Talk:Allan variance so we can avoid oscillation in editing. I think all three of us could concentrate on better things. Cfmd (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael replaced hyphen with dash, which was correct and is dictated by the general WP:MOS rules (I missed those instances and thus there is no contradiction). There is no preference for using – (dash sign) or ndash; operator; I avoid ndash; to shorten the code. I agree this is nitpicking. It only intends to help your content writing, which is much appreciated. Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Time deviation
A month ago you created an article titled time deviation. You included no category tags, so that it didn't show up in the math WikiProject's "current activities" page until someone did that within the past 24 hours. You began with this:
 * Time deviation (TDEV) also known as $$\sigma_x(\tau)$$ is the time stability of phase versus observation interval tau.
 * Time deviation (TDEV) also known as $$\sigma_x(\tau)$$ is the time stability of phase versus observation interval tau.

This lacks context, on a number of counts. What is x and what is &tau;?? You haven't said, even though you've used the notation. Then you say "is the time stability of phase versus observation interval. What could that possibly mean?  Being familiar with some of you other activities in Wikipedia, I suspect it has to do with stability of oscillators, but to the reader who doesn't know that, what could "observation interval" mean?  Or "phase"?  Or "time stability"?

Could you re-write this in such a way that someone who's read the first sentence might have some general idea of what the topic is? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will attend to that. Thanks for pointing it out. I am not yeat sure just what categories these should have, so category tags is missing from me for that reason. I have been asking for aid in that field from a friend. As for the questions at hand, they can be correctly answered. 81.232.73.152 (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer
I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dick effect article, etc.
Hi Magnus, I've submitted the draft Dick effect article for review so it's in the works now. You had mentioned taking a broad look at the atomic frequency standards area, and I'd like to encourage you to move into that area; it really needs work. I was just looking at the 'clock mechanism' section of atomic clock and it's decades out of date, describing the limiting stability as only due to atom or photon number, and not referencing the Dick effect, which has been the limit to stability for advanced frequency standards for many years now. What do you think? Because the Dick effect page is in review, I'm not sure what to do. G John Dick (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The Dick effect article is now up and running. G John Dick (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)