User talk:UserXresu

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Slashme (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Measuring instrument/principle
You've done quite a lot of work on both these new articles, particularly Measuring instrument. While these articles both seem reasonable and useful, this is an encyclopedia and everything needs to come from external sources. Could you add information about the books or articles that this material is based on? Thanks :) -- Jaeger5432 | Talk 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The articles are still in work ... I hope to develop them also in the annotated direction... :-) UserXresu (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If they don't wind up with citations (annotations), then they may not be considered suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. (Also, writing here is like writing anywhere else - it's much easier to include citations as you go than try to go back and add them later!)  Are you using sources for these articles?  I'd be happy to help format the citation info correctly, if that's what's needed.  Which books/articles/websites are you getting this information from? - Jaeger5432 | Talk 23:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you please specify what exactly may not be considered suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? (I tried to formulate things so that they remain pretty mainstream.) UserXresu (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I may've sounded vaguely hostile - didn't mean to :) The question isn't the content: Articles on basic concepts relating to measurement instruments are certainly worthwhile.  The doubt comes from the fact that there's no information about where the material came from.  That is, were these your own thoughts, or are you perhaps summarizing a book or journal article?  If it's all based on your own thoughts and knowledge, then the rest of us have no way to check the information.  (I am not trying to say that you're wrong about any of it.  Just that we all need to be able to check that everything is right.)
 * This is all summed up in the first of the Five Principles, or more completely  here.
 * Basically, everything needs to come from published sources that we can all look at. A concept this broad should have plenty of sources, at least for different subject-specific parts.  I don't know what you might be drawing from, but if you'd like I'd certainly help out with it in any way that I can. - Jaeger5432 | Talk 22:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Source: If I would base an article directly on external sources, I would readily reference these sources. These articles have no singular sources except Wikipedia itself and own more or less hopefully good judgement about what can be said jargon-free to inform non-specialized people about measuring instruments without loosing too much clarity on physics-related basics.

Also at this place it is embarrassing to be asked for sources if the seemingly "original research" (it took me some time to find out what OR is, OR) solely consists of some obvious implications or reformulations in simple words. (And if the sources really exist, to run the risk of being accused of plagiarism.)

Nevertheless, I'm still wondering whether to discern between microscopical/macroscopical measurement devices or what other structure serves an unsuspecting reader; at the same time serving a specialized reader who searches information about a certain device/device class. So the structuring of the article clearly reflects own thought. Actually, the overall structure of the article still appears rather hazy to me, at least concerning some sections. This morning, I introduced a section "Identification and content", which maybe a section-heading a prospective reader may expect to find.

Another issue which I certainly don't want to touch on the page of a measurement device is the diverging interpretation of the notion "heat": heat=energy (transfer) in Callen:



and heat=entropy in Fuchs



I hope to keep this page tolerable for anyone who adheres to one of those viewpoints. At some time in the future this hint is meant to be inserted into the article's talk page. But for the time being, if nobody wants a concrete information, I will refrain from fixing myself into or between any of those positions, even by giving a simple reference. (Maybe there could be established the pages "Heat (common sense)", "Heat (energy transfer)" (the current "Heat" article which I value) and "Heat (entropy)" in Wikipedia reflecting views, but at this point I wouldn't take the responsibility to succinctly editing such pages. I wasn't part of any disputes in the past, and I think I won't be in the future.)

The text about buoyancy in the tentatively introduced article "measuring principle" actually should reproduce what is said in the article about buoyancy, so that is nothing new and hopefully can be verified by direct inspection of the other article. Many available reformulations usually support the development of understanding (see also Incremental reading).

Referencing: Since the "measuring article"s apparently serve as a structured overview, I thought it would suggest a natural approach by successively relating statements to Wikipedia articles with more specific contents. Partly already done, the blueness of the text indicates that.

For example: I have linked "energy carrier" to the page of the same name inside Wikipedia. That page mentions an ISO norm which seems to specify that notion (previously unknown to me); I surmise that this is much more effective than any reference to a written text. Maybe I would treat other aspects in the same way!

If possible, I would prefer a Wikipedia internal link over an external reference. For several reasons: Wikipedia itself is really accessible to everyone (all of us); whereas following references to peer-reviewed articles often leads to either download-after-paid articles (~30-50$) or those referenced articles are available in University libraries only; that does not qualify as being really accessible to "everyone". Even peer-reviewed articles sometimes seem to have their problems with being right and wrong or something in between, and assessing this state usually involves a lot of work, if there exists no easily applicable falsification procedure. A similar argument can be given concerning (text-)books, as I have already outlined above, giving the example of Thermodynamics.

Help: Maybe a practice of marking sentences with empty footnotes could make them reconsiderable. (As documented in the Wikipedia article about Herbert Callen "citation needed marks" exist for abount ten months.) And finally, as I said, I was still pondering about various aspects of these articles; it is still highly unfinished work!

The following does not critically concern your answer but reflects my impression taken from the reading of the wealth of rules: If linking article sentences to talk-pages is possible, which I haven't tried up to now, but I suppose it is possible; why not giving users the option to set links there and tell about issues that remain unclear. Would it be useful to have an Amazon-like reader-option of the kind "This page was useful Yes/No"? Having browsed through Citing sources and Verifiability and imagining all the rules I had to follow in the future, that anticipable overhead of work seems rather stifling than encouraging, so this lets me contemplate about leaning towards Ignore all rules or to act more sparingly in my work here. Hopefully both measurement articles, so far, not only improved or maintained Wikipedia, but also improved its usefulness for prospective readers. UserXresu (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd really like to apologize if I've had the effect of stifling you or disparaging your efforts here. You've clearly got both knowledge about this stuff and a passion to share it, and Wikipedia really needs that, particularly in the sciences!  (For some reason, articles about recent episodes of popular TV shows wind up much more complete than articles on dasymeters...)  I wasn't either trying to embarrass you - everything I've said, I've meant to say in a spirit of "here's a suggestion for making a useful article even better", not "prove what you say or shut up!" :)
 * As far as references go - Wikipedia tries to be a secondary source, which collects and condenses the original material (books and journal articles) into a more concise form. (One which also happens to be free, so that anyone can read it without needing to pay $30 times 100 for the original articles.)  But - if people start adding stuff that cannot be backed up by external sources (books, etc.), then how can the average reader know he can trust it?  Even if he can't access the original papers (or lacks the background to understand the details), he can at least see that a particular article references a dozen papers, and therefore might be trustworthy.  If there's no such support, then it's just something written by random strangers on the internet... and no more trustworthy than any other such info!  (Collaborative review by other editors?  There's pages which haven't been edited in two years or more.  Are they right?  Are they wrong?  How's a layman to know?)
 * "Plagiarism" is only when someone copies someone else's text and does not credit the source. In WP terms, that's a "copyvio" (copyright violation), and is usually handled both quickly and strictly.  So if the best way to express a point in the article is by quoting from source material, then quote away...

- Jaeger5432 | Talk 04:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the long list of my changes and re-changes should indicate that, even though I hope that I have gathered some understanding that may help others, I still search for a formulation that is well-received or can be verified. This does not guarantee that I get things always right; I might goof heavily, as may be seen again by the incremental development of the whole article. As soon as I find a source which I feel acceptable to share, I will post it. I hope there will come the point were I can furnish citations, but I don't want to spend my days in libraries and I don't want to promise anything before it has happened. Maybe in the meantime others might help me. If you feel it is useful to mark statements with a "citation needed mark", please do. This could encourage others to furnish citations which are out of my reach, or to improve the statements. I would happily accept (unmandative, undogmatic, common sense) help that improves the article, because up to now I worked alone on developing it further. I don't want to loose the initial happy-go-lucky atmosphere of the article I had found featuring a love-meter and a parking-meter; in that sense I'm afraid that I could have over-professionalized it already, the images should moderate that impression. The work continued only because from time-to-time I thought that something might still be missing, otherwise I already would have stopped it anyway. But in expanding this article I have learnt a lot on measuring instruments and related aspects (dasymeters were completely new to me). Apparently the article also seems to exceed a 30k size (of acceptability?), so I also wonder if that article eventually could dissolve in a "preparation and measurement" portal. But first I hope to clarify structure and content to a certain point, even if that should mean to strain some rules. In terms what you say about verifiability, but also in other terms (range and accuracy, applicability of a measurement instrument) that article certainly still involves a lot of work to be done. I have now introduced "dictions" in energy; maybe that's the way to effectively reference both mentioned books without creating too much confusion. UserXresu (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Measuring instrument, reply to email
Hi UserXresu!

In future, I'd prefer it if you message me by leaving messages on my user talk page (unless you specifically don't want to broadcast them, of course.)

So far you've done a great job improving the article. Most of the text, as you say, links to pages describing the instruments in question, so there is no issue of original research, but the paragraphs which you have written introducing the topics are really hard to follow, and because I'm not a physicist, I have trouble in places telling whether they're even right. You have my sympathy here, because I know it's hard to write about these topics. You have to be accurate and precise, while still covering the general topic. You must describe abstract concepts that relate to a whole range of concrete things. You must give an overview of the concept without writing a whole book. Define time in less than 20 words? Ouch.

I also understand that it's hard to find good references for such general statements. If and when I get around to trying to improve the article myself, I'll take a look at my first-year physics textbook and "Instrumental analysis" by Christian and O'Reilly to see whether I can use them to reference some of the text. Good luck! You obviously have good editing stamina, which is essential here. --Slashme (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slashme! Thanks for the reply, especially in form of the corrections already done by you and a third party! Your difficulties mentioned above should cause me to revise some of the written stuff; ideally the writing should give any non-physicist a reassuring feeling about the list of instruments that follows, while remaining precise for a physicist. But again I don't want to promise anything in advance. As you can see in other messages, I also had some thoughts about the whole article and how it fits into Wikipedia. (By the way, I was happy to have hopefully found an answer to the question that I found unanswered in many text-books: How do they measure entropy?) UserXresu (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ==Proposed deletion of Measured quantity==

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Measured quantity, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * group of trivial definitions

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DGG (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:09, 10 March 2009 (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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Preparation (physics)


The article Preparation (physics) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Wikipedia is [[WP:NAD|undefined"

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 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 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.

Proposed deletion of Microphysics


The article Microphysics has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Just a dictionary definition - not a meaningful disambiguation or distinction"

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 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 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. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"Aggregate state" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aggregate state and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 13 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Measured quantity for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Measured quantity 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 Articles for deletion/Measured quantity 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 until the discussion has finished. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)