Annafarrell 2

Annafarrell 2, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Annafarrell 2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Microstructurally Stable Nanocrystalline Alloy (July 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Microstructurally Stable Nanocrystalline Alloy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Microstructurally Stable Nanocrystalline Alloy, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Microstructurally Stable Copper and 10% Atomic Tantalum Nanocrystalline Alloy

Hello, Annafarrell 2,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Microstructurally Stable Copper and 10% Atomic Tantalum Nanocrystalline Alloy should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microstructurally Stable Copper and 10% Atomic Tantalum Nanocrystalline Alloy .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Enwebb (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Omnidirectional acceleration sensor

Hi, I'm Graeme Bartlett. Annafarrell 2, thanks for creating Omnidirectional acceleration sensor!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Independent references are needed to show notability, ie the impact of this invention. I could not find any suitable ones.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Omnidirectional acceleration sensor

The article Omnidirectional acceleration sensor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article based on a single primary source that does not indicate that this is a significant invention.

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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

What's this about

Can you please explain how this addition, discussing the crosstalk between pixel sensors on a focal plane array, has anything to do with applications of 3D scanning? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @WikiDan61:, thanks so much for your interest. The importance of discussing crosstalk for 3D scanning is that it allows for the better representation of a 3D image. So the experimentation that I discussed is an improvement in 3D ladar imaging which can be used for scanning. I can try and simplify my post making the connection clear. Thank you.

Yes, I would definitely aim at simplifying, because the text you added does not appear to have anything to do with 3D scanning. Also, it is not an application of 3D scanning, but rather an improvement of one of the technologies of 3D scanning. I would suggest that, since the experimentation you are discussing relates to focal plane arrays (which can be used in 3D scanners, but also in a wide array of other devices), your addition would best be made in the article about that technology.

Furthermore, the Army Research Lab paper that you cited here, does not mention anything about crosstalk between the focal plan array and the image column. For that matter, the phrase "crosstalk between the focal plane array and the image column" does not really appear to make much sense as I can find no clear definition of the term "image column" that would make this sentence make sense. (Mind you, I'm a software engineer, not an optical engineer, so my knowledge only goes so deep.) Your description of "pixels" that follows refers to pixels of a display device, not to pixels of an imaging device.

In sum, I'm not sure that the material you have added has any place in Wikipedia, because it is not clear that it actually makes any sense, nor is it validly supported by reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick note about copying between articles

Hi, and thanks for your contributions! Just a quick note, I see that you moved a paragraph from Brain–computer interface to Electroencephalography with the summary relevant information on another page was more appropriate here. This is perfectly fine, and always best to have content where it is most appropriate. One thing to note though: our license requires attribution of all edits, so whenever moving or copying content from one article to another, the summary needs to say specifically where it was copied from. Something like Content copied from [[Article-name]], which see for attribution. That satisfies the attribution requirement, so that if anyone ever wanted to see who first wrote that text, they'd have a path back to it. You can see the summary I added to Electroencephalography as an example. Thanks! Crow^Caw 15:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi thank you so much for this note! I will be sure to do this in future situations.

Please take care

In adding a section about SSVEP mobile EEG BCIs to the Brain-computer interface article, you completely removed the section about dry active electrode arrays. I have fixed the mistake, but please be more careful in future edits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi thank you for your note.I moved that section to a more appropriate section of dry electrodes under the EEG page. However, I didn't know of the attribution rule- the need to apply "Content copied from Article-name, which see for attribution" in the description rather than my "relevant information on another page was more appropriate here." I have not been able to see if I could perhaps change my summary to make it more clear for future users. If there is anything that I need to do to fix record keeping I would appreciate your recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annafarel 2 (talk • contribs)

Your edit summary when removing this information read "added a portion about mobile EEG BCIs and their limitations". It didn't say anything about removing a section to put in a better place, so I assumed the removal was an accident. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see perhaps that description was in my addition. I will go back and revise with this conversation in mind. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annfarrell 2 (talk • contribs)

I've restored the material again at Brain-computer interface. While the material may well be pertinent at Electroencephelography, the application of this technique as a BCI mechanism makes the material pertinent at the BCI page as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

PS: Major changes like this (removing entire sections of the article) are best discussed before done. At the very least, ask the question at the talk page: "Hey, I'd like to remove this section because I think it fits better somewhere else." If you get no objections (leave the question open for a few days at least), then go ahead, and then mention the talk page discussion in your edit summary when you do make the change. Oh, and don't forget to sign your talk page posts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Nerve agents

Please read User talk:Rafreyna#Detection of nerve agents and/or Talk:Nerve agent#Detection section-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Toddy1, in adding this section about LPAS I was writing about various organizations developments of the technology- more than just that developed by the USARL. Because of this I do not think that it is promotional of the ARL multiwavelength PAS, rather a discussion of many studies involving a particular detection method. I think that by forming a detection section and then making a subsection about photoacoustic spectroscopy I can hopefully encourage others to fill in other detection methods. This should I think make things more clear to users that PAS is only a subsection of detection methods rather than purely the only existing detection method. If I find more information about FFIR etc. I will add other sections. I will do this in the next few days- thank you for bringing this to my attention!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annafarrell 2 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that there are other technologies - for example, old fashioned detection paper is useful for testing for the presence of liquid agents.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Auditory Hazard Assessment Algorithm for Humans has been accepted

Auditory Hazard Assessment Algorithm for Humans, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Acebulf (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Paid Editing

Hi Annafarrell 2, I see that you've added a paid editing template to your userpage - thank you for disclosing that. Please don't forget to add the appropriate template to the talk page of all affected articles as well. I've done so for you here, but it will need to be done on all articles you are editing as part of your role with US Army Research Labs to be in compliance with Wikipedia's disclosure policies. Please also understand that Wikipedia strongly discourages paid editors from editing affected articles directly. Please read the conflict of interest policy, specifically the portion relating to paid editing. Thank you. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robotics Collaborative Technology Alliance has been accepted

Robotics Collaborative Technology Alliance, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)