User talk:StarryGrandma/Archive 7

A note

Welcome to WP.

I noticed that you have mentioned that you may be having problems with mark ups. You are not alone. There are several style guides on WP. While some articles may have a recommended style guide for references anything reasonable is probably OK. If you are having problems let me know and I will be happy to see if I can help.

Good to have another editor as the numbers here are falling. Virion123 (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Bejan

The issue is that of the only source we have for the terribly important timeline is the original publications themselves - i.e. no independent source has described the timeline of Bejan's pet theory and we are essentially the first to do so - then we are probably giving it undue weight. We may also be falling into the trap of covering it as a neutral statement of fact when perhaps its reception meant that it should be covered entirely differently. That's why we should have secondary sources that describe how this conjecture was received at the time. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Guy, I'm rather astounded. I've been working on articles for academics for quite some time. I've never had a citation for a major professional society award or a citation for a 60th birthday article about a professor called primary sources before, with the statement [non-primary souce needed]. If he had received the Nobel Prize how would you cite the Nobel committee's statement? Please consider removing them.

Articles about researchers should provide the history of the development of their ideas, much as the Dictionary of Scientific Biography does. Often we use oral histories as the source for this. I've never had those rejected. The statement by Bejan in a peer-reviewed paper of how he developed this idea (and wandered with it into the land of not even wrong which I can indicate without having to say it explicitly - assuming anyone notices his logical fallacy in the summary I wrote) carries just as much weight as an oral history interview. As to how it was received at the time, it was loved. He got awards mentioning it. (I keep having to trim his awards list as editors try to add them back.)

I carried out the "smerge' after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constructal law by taking nothing from that article, just writing from the sources. I wrote it as part of the development of his ideas and career in order not to give it undue weight. I am trying to be neutral; you are not. He has just received a major award from a major institution for his constructal law, which does work very well as a method in mechanical engineering. I am trying to document how that happened. The timeline isn't what matters, its the influences that gave rise to what he is doing. Occasionally senior professors extend their ideas beyond their own areas of expertise. So far there are no reliable independent secondary sources critical of his extension of constructal law into the basic law of the universe. (No one outside of his own field takes it seriously. I'm hoping the Franklin Medal will precipitate something.) StarryGrandma (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That's probably because you have not edited many articles that have a long history of vanity spamming. We accept primary and self-sourcing for uncontroversial content, but Bejan's "constructal law" is controversial if not WP:FRINGE, so all statements in terms of its significance and development require independent sourcing. Normal for Wikipedia, in other words, but not normal for academics, most of whom don't abuse this project to promote pet theories that are seemingly not making their way in the scientific marketplace of ideas. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Guy, you and I are both on the same page here about fringy-ness and I think we can come up with an approach that will make up both happy. I will say, however, that academic articles attract their share of publicity minded academics and adoring students, so I have had experience with this. A couple of points:

• It is OK to call it a physical law. There are lots of these and they usually deal with methods of calculating something, like Snell's law or Gauss's law. Admittedly Bejan, from his very first paper, considers it a physical LAW determining everything in the universe. He likes law better than theory which is good because, in physics, theories are the big overarching things.
• No matter how much I feel this is a fringe theory, it does not meet the definition in WP:FRINGE but falls under alternative theoretical formulations.

I see no reason under these circumstances to not follow the usual use of primary sources in articles about academics. The trick is to make the article not sound like a complete endorsement. I guess my summary of how he came to his approach, paraphrasing the logical error he makes, may be too subtle. But it would be original research on my part to say so. Maybe you have some ideas.

This is what happened:

• In the process of working out a method (a good one) for getting heat flowing out of tiny but hot processor chips he came up with a systematic method (call it process A) that produces a branching, tree-like structure (result B). Think of this as a logical statement, process A produces result B or "if A then B".
• In nature many structures that involve flows (I think one could say all of nature involves flow of some sort) are branching and tree-like.
• So he states he has discovered a new law, everything that is result B (which is everything) has to have been produced by his process A.

It is the classic logical fallacy and one can see him making it very clearly in his paper.

I also think it important to include the citations from the ASME. Coming from a society of 130,000 members, this is definitely a secondary assessment of his work. It is primary for their opinion, but it is usual to reference these to the societies themselves. I am fascinated by the awarding of the Benjamin Franklin Medal and the honors from the ASME, I would love to know how all this happened. Until (and if ever) someone writes a review of the events the best we can do is just include the facts as they happened. This is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

Bejan is almost as old as I am, with his PhD in 1975. An engineer back then would not have been exposed to much atomic physics or quantum mechanics. His books Convection Heat Transfer and and Thermal Design and Optimization stay firmly in the realm of classical thermodynamics (looking at the tables of contents in their Amazon listings). His popular textbook, Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics has no indication of statistical mechanics or kinetic theory in the table of contents, and seems to rely completely on classical thermodynamics. The prefaces make interesting reading. He would like for engineers to reclaim thermodynamics, taking it back from the non-engineers who focus on the "infinitismal and microscopic facets of thermodynamics."

On the other hand, an engineering professor like Gang Chen at MIT who is also in heat transfer (could use an article) is younger, with his PhD in 1993. Like Bejan he is a Fellow of the ASME, but also a Fellow of the American Physical Society. The table of contents of his book on book on energy transport shows he goes well into atomic theory and quantum mechanics.

The focus of the ASME is on industry and setting standards. Most of their members are engineers in industry, professional engineers (PEs) rather than PhDs. I wonder if there is a split within the ASME between older engineers whose physics education would have focused on classical physics and younger engineers who would have been exposed to atomic physics and quantum mechanics and may be less open to Bejan's ideas. Or just that most of the members think Bejan's approach is just fine. Arghhh! The ASME is my favorite engineering society after my father's AIME. Frank and Lillian Gilbreth were involved in the early years of the society.

Thanks for letting me vent and speculate about this. It is sad but mesmerizing to watch an entire engineering society so publicly embrace something like this. They love his books for the general public since it is putting engineering in the public eye. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that it is OK to call it a physical law. The laws of physics are extensively tested. To call it a law (rather than a conjecture or theory) puts it on a par with gravity or thermodynamics, which is clearly unwarranted.

You may well be right re ASME. hey are not well placed to judge physics questions. My institution is the IET - we're proud of our Faraday heritage but nobody ignores the fact that modern-day science is far removed from old-timey natural philosophy.

My main concern is that we rely far too much on primary sources, and there are very few independent secondary sources which discuss the status of his purported law. A few papers are predicated on it being real, a much larger number (which we cannot reference per WP:SYN) clearly simply ignore it, and we need independent non-acolyte sources that describe its nature, acceptance, history and status. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:International Union of Electrical Workers

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Brienne Ghafourifar

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Teahous: submitted article declined / inadequate references

Dear StarryGrandma, Thank you for your feedback in the teahouse! I will edit and resubmit the article. Scairp4 (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Crunchy Data

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for passing the article Geological Society of America through the AfC process. Keagiles (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Kittu Vissapragada

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Relpoleco

I responded/have a question to your comment on my talk page regarding my article submission, but didn't know how to message/notify you. You can delete this afterwards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relpoleco (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Cassantec AG

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols
• Draft:Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Flag

Hi, StarryGrandma.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Would you please consider heading over to PERM and requesting it? (check the flag requirements HERE)
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:De Sarthe Gallery

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Quail Coalition

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Brian K. Stafford
• Draft:Jack A Gilbert
• Draft:Juliette Denny

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Sequential proportional approval voting

An article that you have been involved in editing—Sequential proportional approval voting—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Dhalsim2 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse response

I got the notification, went to the Teahouse--and my question and your answer are both gone! Does that mean they thought it was a stupid question?!? I guess they did--but this is kicking my butt! I am trying to get an article ready for FA review and my reviewer says I need chapter titles for every anthology reference--there are probably forty different references within the same book and the software won't let me just change the chapter titles--it gives me the flashing neon you are an idiot sign--so I am having to go back through and change them manually one at a time including a change to the reference name in every oner. I am building the wall of china one brick at a time... :-) Thank you for your help though! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, a lot was gone after I answered your question!!! There was a reference error further up that hid a whole chunk of the page. I had to fix it, then I put the answer back? What are the references you are working with. Maybe I can think of something. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Bless you! It showed back up after you fixed it and I sent an example there. I have been on Wiki about a year and have learned some of the basics but it does not take me long to get in over my head! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: I just wanted to say thank you again for all your help--not just the references you did yourself--but for how much it encouraged me that it could be done which prompted me to get on with it! So thank you very very much. JMilburn is mentoring me through the FA process in hopes the article might stand a chance. With your help, that chance is much improved. I hope you will consider me a friend from now on and if you ever need anything--just ping me! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, glad to be of help and glad things are going well. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Response about the plural of autocannon

Thank you for replying. In this case, the article has uses "autocannons" for years, and had also used "autocannons" before the 2015 argument. I sought a compromise whereby both spellings would be accepted on the article. I'm seen that done in other places and it seems to work out fairly well.

I am aware of the cannon plurality differences between UK and US, however, I find that the usage of "autocannons" is common in countries that use cannon as plural. I've spoken with soldiers from Commonwealth countries who told me "autocannons" is the norm across all of NATO, even if usage of cannon differs. I also find there is ample evidence on the Internet that autocannons is not only by far the most common, but it's basically the only usage. I did a search yesterday and had a hard time even finding a web site that used autocannon as plural. I have not seen another editor revert edits about its plurality. It's always this one person. I have seen many editors try to change autocannon to autocannons, but almost never the other way around. So, my two points here are that "autocannons" is far from just a US spelling and that it is more common than autocannon as plural. I also strongly believe that autocannon the decision of the autocannon article should not be tied to the cannon article. People use them differently.

So anyway, this editor wants to "re-litigate" the issue on the talk page and see where the consensus lies, but it's hard when he and I seem to be the only ones who care. Not one person besides him spoke out against using "autocannons" back in 2015. I think that if others don't care, then that shouldn't count as an objection to using "autocannons", while he says thinks it does.

If Wikipedia policy is that he has a right to block another editor like this, then I guess I want to proceed with the talk page. He said it could go on the Autocannon talk page or on the WPMILHIST talk page. Does that mean the Military History article's talk page? I looked there briefly and I didn't see any decision-type discussions. What is the best way to prepare a statement for a favorable outcome, and hopefully to get actual responses? --Trifler (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trifler. For the first part of your question, I don't think this is as much a military history issue as a style issue independent of the topic. The section Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles suggests using either the article talk page or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I am still thinking about the second part. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking about this. I've been feeling nauseous due to anxiety over this issue. --Trifler (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Trifler, I've been doing some research. Normally the best argument to make would be to look at the references and see what the most common usage is. (That article really needs inline citations.) However in this case manufacturers, government press releases, Jane's publications, and reference books like the one in the article

• Williams, Anthony G. (2000). Rapid Fire: The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and Their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces. Airlife. ISBN 978-1-84037-122-2.

use the term automatic cannon. This makes it hard to go by references looking to see how the plural is used. And these are the most common and reliable international sources.

There is consensus on Wikipedia to use the abbreviation autocannon, (also spelled auto-cannon and auto cannon in discussions online). We can see this consensus developing in the history of the article and Category:Autocannon. The article was always named Autocannon. The category was "Category:Automatic cannons" from from 2004 until 2017 and still links to the Commons "Category:Automatic cannons". Websites and magazines aimed at military or ex-military tend to use autocannon rather than the longer name. See this article at Airman Magazine (using plural autocannons) and this video at military.com (autocannons in title). These are publications aimed at military or ex-military and are American. The British military is so much smaller it doesn't seem to have such publications.

To make the point that autocannons is the most common form in many varieties of English you will need to use published sources, not just asking people. Look online at sites that discuss military hardware (most seem to discuss autocannons in fantasy and gaming instead) and see if the people there use autocannons (or auto cannons, auto-cannons) rather than autocannon. Try pages that list military hardware and are not limited to the US. To discuss it use Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

Most of the guidelines here at Wikipedia developed to reduce the arguments that happened in the early days, and the goal is to keep things settled. The article started using the plural without the 's' and didn't have autocannons added until much later. For some time it had both spellings as editors added things but that goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Consistency within articles so won't be supported. I would suggest just accepting the way it is and focus on the topic itself. I enjoyed looking at the cute Lego models of autocannons. Who knew? StarryGrandma (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do the research and write such an informative response. While I am naturally disappointed, because I firmly believe Wikipedia is doing a disservice in this case, it seems that there isn't anything I can do about it. I say that because Wikipedia has come to be a major influence of language and media, rather than just a reflection of it. I have been thinking about what you said, and as far as purely military references go, especially when excluding US ones, they are few and far between; regardless of whether they use autocannons or autocannon as plural.

I am curious though, why are the gaming sites not accepted? I was told that articles can be changed based on changes in modern usage, and the gaming sites certainly are modern usage. They are talking about the same type of weapon. The various militaries talked a great deal about autocannons during WW2, but very little in modern times.

Second, can you see a good way that I could record my support for "autocannons" on the talk page, for future editors to see, without people thinking I'm starting an argument about it right now?

Lastly, I have asked the editor in question in the past to at least say something like, "This wiki chooses to use autocannon as plural" rather than saying "the plural of cannon is cannon" as a universal truth. He refused, stating something about my not being able to make him. Is that just the way it is around here? I thought my request seemed reasonable enough. I would certainly have done it for them. --Trifler (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trifler. I'm going away for a week with my grandchildren and will check with you when I get back. Sorry to be too busy to answer. I am confused about the Cannon page, which seems to talk about the two versions of the plural with no problem. Why is it a problem at autocannon? Sorry not to be of more help but I will check with you when I get back. StarryGrandma (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Have a great visit with your grandkids. :) Regarding the Cannon article, like I was saying, the other editors unofficially accept mixed spelling. It's just this one person. I imagine that if he notices, he'll change them too. The other editors did leave the Autocannon article with "autocannons" for three years. Until recently, I thought another editor had asked him to just leave it be, but he says he just didn't notice. --Trifler (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Just checking in. Hopefully you had a great and safe trip. --Trifler (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Just wondering if you're back. I hope you're ok. --Trifler (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Latest message for Collaboration team newsletter; Growth team's newsletter invite

Hello

Sorry to use English if that's not your favorite language.

You are receiving this message because you were reading the Collaboration team newsletter.

The Collaboration team doesn't longer exists. That team was working on building features that encourage collaboration. This is the latest message for that newsletter.

The Growth Team, formed in July 2018, supports some former Collaboration projects. The Growth Team's main objective is to ease new editors' first steps on wikis, through software changes. You can discover all objectives and missions of the Growth team on its page.

If you wish to be informed about Growth team's updates about easing new users first steps, you can subscribe to the new list to get updates. The first message from Growth –with a call for feedback on a new project– will be posted in a few days!

If you have questions or you want to share experiences made on your wiki about new users' first steps, please post them on the team talk page, in any language.

On behalf of the Growth team, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Response

I read your response in the archive at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 831, and the problem with that is that in some jurisdictions in the U.S. the practice of law could potentially include any discussion whatsoever that requires any amount of legal skill. See, for example, the definition of the practice of law promulgated by the state of Texas. Therefore, making a statement that doesn't come directly from the court's opinion can be defined as the illegal practice of law in some jurisdictions. USN007 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

USN007, I have no expertise on the law. I do note that Wikipedia has articles that cover the law extensively. The place to bring your concerns is the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 03:54:16, 25 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Lvilench

• Lvilench (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Entropic interaction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your comments. However, it is not clear for me why you consider the article as an original research with lack of references. The original researches for entropic interaction were published by a few authors (according to used references) in different peer-reviewed journals (Do you familiar with these publications?). Of course, there are no monographs that describe entropic interaction because this notion is rather new (beside monographs [2] and [3] written about 50 years ago, where the entropic interaction was used in the adjunctive mood relating to macromolecules, and these monographs I consider as secondary sources. Did you read these books?). But this is a normal situation for any new development in science. The current article gives the exact definition for the entropic interaction and a few examples where this interaction is working. I think the article will be interesting and useful for readers with different background. 03:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You say this is a new development in science. That is exactly the problem, it is too new and may not yet be accepted by others. You have, in your papers and in your book, Quintessence: A Thermodynamic Approach to the Phenomena of Nature, described entropic interaction as an overarching principle in physics. These are primary sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for publishing new ideas. To have an article here requires that a scientific concept be well enough known that it has been written about by people independent of you in secondary sources such as review articles. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. It is too soon for other researchers to have taken this up, published their own papers, then had all this reviewed in secondary sources.

Wikipedia turns down many interesting and informative articles. Our requirements as an encyclopedia are different. To quote from Wikipedia:Notability: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

I am sorry that you are disappointed by this. The role of entropy and the work being done on it today is a fascinating topic. Applications such as entropic interaction chromatography are interesting and could use an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Move review: Paradisus Judaeorum

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!