Talk:Triboelectric effect

Request for comment on meaning of triboelectricity

Normal useage of many science terms is a noun and the corresponding adjective for instance ferroelectric and ferroelecticity. Other examples are for the adjective pyroelectric, piezoelectric, ferromagnetic, electromagnetic (and more).
It has been suggested that triboelectricity is the electricity produced by the triboelectric effect, instead of being the noun with triboelectric the adjective. For completeness, note that triboelectricity is a charge transfer, and there is common use of triboelectric as an adjective.Ldm1954 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you rename the article "Triboelectricity". The "effect" is not helpful. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that my version of the opening statement is clearer: Should "triboelectricity" be treated as an alternative name for the triboelectric effect or as the electricity produced by the triboelectric effect? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Electricity. There is a plethora of online, secondary, reliable sources that support that it is electricity,s ee the section above.

University of Wisconsin MRSEC

Triboelectricity, more commonly known as static electricity

ScienceDirect, a science publication search tool

Triboelectricity is a particular case of the general phenomenon of charge storage exhibited by electrets.

Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you do not want to pay attention to the science, but still feel that you are an expert. To quote what you said:

"I don't think I'll have time or commitment to read the entire book just for Wikipedia" Ldm1954 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where I have claimed that I'm an expert, and I believe that I should not need to finish reading a 250+ page book just to see if there is anything in there that claims that triboelectricity is the triboelectric effect without using the word "triboelectricity" Aaron Liu (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, please read Dunning–Kruger effect, I am afraid this is relevant. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Having read through the above discussions, I'm going to have to side with Ldm1954: "You need to read and understand it [the applicable literature] before you try to comment on the relevant science." I think we have here a case of someone who "knows just enough to get into trouble" as the saying goes. Even Liu's understanding of what "noun" means seems off to me. E.g., all three of "triboelectricity", "electricity", and "triboelectric effect" are nouns (or a noun phrase in the third case), yet Liu says "triboelectricity is the electricity produced by the triboelectric effect, instead of being the noun with triboelectric the adjective", which is a statement that makes no sense if you known what a noun is. At most, we may have a case where the term "triboelectricity" is used multiple ways, and the solution to that is to explain both definitions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish "instead of being the noun with triboelectric the adjective" is not what I said at all, I agree that all three of these are nouns and have no idea why Ldm's talking about parts of speech. I don't think I should be required to read an entire 250+ page book to comment on what triboelectricity means, especially when I found no mention of "triboelectricity" in the PDF. I've read all the other sources Ldm has provided (save for DOI:10.5006/2555 which I can't access), and while the numsis.northwestern.edu ones do say it's the same thing as the effect, it's from a research team, none of them are review articles, and it counts as a primary source and should have less weight than secondary sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Also on a side note I prefer "Aaron" instead of "Liu". Aaron Liu (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The thing most closely related to the nonsense about parts of speech was when I opposed Ldm's overexpanding of the opening statement in the RfC draft in the "RfC draft" section above. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I quoted the wrong party, sorry about that. Anyway, I stand by the gist of what I wrote: If we have multiple uses of the same word, we explain them, and explaining them is done by reading and summarizing complex source material. It's work. And it can't be faked by skimming a little of the source material and then saying "I should not need to finish reading a 250+ page book". Those who won't do the work need to stand aside. I should know; I've just spent 3 months of my free time researching another topic, and it has involved reading thousands of pages of complex source material. Our matter on that topic is now vastly better than it was before, but it required doing all that reading, and accurately summarizing that material – including in light of conflicts between different authors, and different shades of meaning being attached to particular words, and figuring out what weight is due to each source. There is no shortcut. PS: It's clear just from the two source quotes above that different authors are using "tribolectricity" very differently. The first is using it to mean the static electricity that arises from the triboelectric effect, and the second is using it to mean the tribolectric effect itself. So, moving this article to Triboelectricity may present an ambiguity problem. And WP:RFC is not the process by which we move articles anyway; that's WP:RM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly this RfC isn't about moving things, that was only suggested by John and not in the opening statement. Secondly I really don't think the book can offer any useful information on the meaning of triboelectricity if the word "triboelectricity" isn't in it. The book seems to be about the details of how the triboelectric effect works and I don't see anywhere discussing the terms. I don't think I need to read the entire book and understand how it works to understand what word I should use, and I would very much like it if Ldm told me the page numbers that discussed the terms. Lastly I agree that we could just put them in as disputed though I would really like it if we had secondary sources backing "it's an alternative name". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

How do you know the book doesn't mention "triboelectricity" if you've not read it? Who said anything about "disputed"? A word having multiple meanings or shades of meaning isn't a dispute, it's just different patterns of usage. Honestly, I don't know why this discussion is so long and so ranco[u]rous. I'm of half a mind to just go edit the lead, using the sources already cited above, demonstrating that the term triboelectricity is used in two different ways, and move on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a digitized PDF of it and I used a search tool on it and all mentions of "tribo". When I said "disputed" what I meant is that it has multiple ways of usage, and I can agree to make the lead like that and then try to resolve the other disputes, though I'd still really like to see a secondary source backing the "alternative name" usage. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's research for you to do, then. I've done what I can to satisfy you, and to bring all the above silly pissing match (four whole threads worth of it) to an end. Also did a bunch of citation cleanup.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Lol, only the last three threads (including this one and the RfC draft wasn't really a thread so just one other thread) have been about this, the other ones were about other things. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Also when I said bolding I meant italicizing, my apologies. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It was italicized per MOS:WAW. If you have not internalized our manual of style yet, then you should not be edit-warring with people over style matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Also the ScienceDirect source doesn't appear to support the idea that "triboelectricity" is the same thing as the triboelectric effect to me, see the above mention of ScienceDirect. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove two of the citations from the second paragraph?

Currently, right after The term triboelectricity has been used to refer to the field of study or the general phenomenon of the triboelectric effect, there are 4 citations. This is bad per Wikipedia:Citation overkill (n.b.: an essay). I think the second and third citation behind the sentence should be removed, as they are both from Shaw, who has already been cited in the first citation. This may create the illusion that more parties refer to triboelectricity as the triboelectric effect than the electricity produced by it (not to mention my personal objection to whether or not Shaw believes triboelectricity is the triboelectric effect but let's assume he does). It also slightly clutters the references section with "a b". Thus I think we should remove the second and third citation from the four citations after this sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If you read the source you quote then it, for instances, gives an example of 16. Nowhere is there any issue with 4. The three from Shaw are foundational references, see the later parts of the history, and are all highly cited and widely read. In addition, the issue of triboelectricity being the same as the triboelectric effect has already been answered. And that static electricity is different has also been answered.Ldm1954 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided and the foundational references' main topic is not about the meaning of triboelectricity. It's still just one author, however prolific. It is my belief that to not misrepresent the widespread-ness of the usage we should just use one reference from each party instead of bombing it. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I have mentioned before that your "source" of a MRSEC site is an unrefereed blog of dubious value. As others have also mentioned, dictionaries are not respectable sources. The discussion consensus was to include the secondary use as you insisted, but it is just that, secondary.

Read the references. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The MRSEC cites [1] which cites [2] which quite obviously supports my view.
I've said before that I HAVE read the first three from Shaw. While I may not have entirely absorbed it, I could not find anything that implies triboelectricity (or tribo-electricity as they put it) is the triboelectric effect itself. At the best I found 1. it equivalating to "frictional electricity" for which the first source I found says it's a form of electricity. 2. tribo-electricity cannot be a purely statical effect but that could mean electricity is an effect. Either way this discussion operates under the assumption that Shaw's do say that. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

While I was unable to access the Thomas Freund one I've managed to find this for the powders one. I've scanned it and ran a find query for "electricity" and could not find where it supports the claim that triboelectricity=the triboelectric effect Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, "from" also means causation. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Unethical behavior by Aaron Liu

I want to bring to the attention of various people who have edited this page, including Johnjbarton, SMcCandlish and Headbomb that suddenly the conclusion of a third party opinion on the meaning of triboelectricity has been reported as "The result is include both viewpoints", which was not the concensus. The user has also suddenly decided to redo a large set of revisions which it was previosly pointed out were inappropriate. I am going to revert them, but I expect that Aaron Liu will not accept this. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: inappropriate edits:

• Two requests for clarification when info is in citations.
• Questioning national standards of China & the US.
• Many ce by a non-native speaker which are inappropriate, changing the sense of sentences so they become inaccurate.
• Grammar mistakes, for instance it is "the Kahn Academy".
• Not knowing that contact potential is standard, and already defined.
• Mangling titles in External links for no good reason.
• Arbitrarily removing references which are different, so appropriate.

Ldm1954 (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Article talk pages aer not really appropriate for editor behavior complaints. That really belongs at WP:ANI (with carefully marshalled evidence). As for the content disputes here, they need to be settled without personalizing the disputes any further. Let's focus on the edits. I tend to agree that these edits in question seem largely unconstructive (with a few exceptions). This was senseless, promoting an American dictionary over the best-known British one aside from the OED. If sources don't agree, we need to adjust the material to encompass the definitional differences. But regular dictionaries are actually not good sources for something like this in the first place, as they gloss over [pun intended]] technical details and distinctions; we should be relying on science dictionaries/encyclopedias if we're going to be using tertiary sources at all for anything here. Secondary science sources that provide definitions in more depth, and with more authority than general-purpose lexicographic linguistics and etymology writers can provide, would be better. This one and this one were correct edits, though should have cited MOS:WAW. This and this were just destructive; if someone thinks there are too many citations in a row, the solution is WP:CITEBUNDLE, not deletion of good sources. However, citation bundling is best done when an article is stable. This was just wrong per WP:CITEVAR; we do not randomly change from CS1 to CS2 templates in a CS1-dominated article. This and this changing of the ext. links were actually constructive and should be restored, but this arguably was not, though that descriptive text could be compressed. This complex edit made several genuine improvements that should be restored, but the {{clarify}} tag was pointless and doesn't even have a |reason= explaining what to clarify, nor is there a request for such clarification on the talk page. This doubling of the clarification tagging didn't help. Just identifying a span doesn't provide a rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. While I agree that a few of the edits had merit, a few you mention are bad grammar. For instance in This the edit to the text "Wiping a chemical tank while it is being filled with a flammable chemical can lead to fire" is bad. Beyond that it should be "fires" or "a fire", the consequence is a spark which can lead to a fire.
There are other issues such as changing from "petrol or other liquids" to "petrol" is not a ce, it is a change of content. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Fire is both countable and uncountable. The reaction itself is uncountable (since you can't really count each "fire particle" most of the time), and the countable equivalent is only for instances of uncountable fire. You can see any dictionary for that.
"fuels such as petrol" and "fuels such as petrol or other liquids" have the same meaning. In fact the latter is redundant. This part is listing example(s) of fuels; "other liquids" has already been included by "fuels". Aaron Liu (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to get in long discussion on this, so I will only clarify once and not respond further except to correct edits as appropriate:

• There is no such thing as a "fire particle". One can have any of "a fire", "the fire" or "fires", not "fire" by itself except the verb when someone is terminated. In any case, tribocharge leads to sparks which may ignite the liquid which is not the same.
• Using "fuels such as petrol or other liquids" is not the same as "fuels such as petrol", as most combustible liquids are not fuels.
• Sources which detail regulations are required to verify them.
• It is not a question of whether they use "The Kahn Academy" in their name, similar to "The Ohio State University". It is whether a definitive article is appropriate before their name, which I believe it is.
• Sorry, we have been over the citation issue too many times. You have stated that you have not and will not read them, so it is inappropriate for you to comment.

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Still you can't really count fire, you can only count instances of it. See Collins. The result is still "lead to fire". The important part is it leads to fire and the reader can probably guess that it's from triboelectric sparks; no need to be overly verbose.
2. Ah, I see.
3. I'm not saying that these sources should be removed. The only sources I've removed from these entries are of sellers of testing equipment. The source on the regulation itself is preserved.
4. Firstly it's Khan Academy. Secondly while I do not know what the specific rule is, I have observed that for most website names that aren't physical people do not use definitive articles. For example, we say "Wikipedia" not "The Wikipedia". We say "Merriam-Webster" and "the Merriam-Webster dictionary", not "the Merriam-Webster". The same should apply to Khan Academy.
5. Citation trimming is simply not the same issue as what the meaning of triboelectricity is. If you're talking about the RfC close, what close message do you suggest?

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but Ldm1954 is correct on almost all of these points. "can lead to fire" is not idomatic in English, not in an encyclopedic register (it could be used on something like a sign, where various words are dropped). The fact that the fire is from sparks not from grandual increase in frictional heat is very pertinent, so is not "overly verbose" (unlike your endlessly argue-with-everyone-forever attempts to defend your changes no matter how many people object to them). There is no WP ban on citing commercial sources; if they provide more reader-friendly material than governmentese citations, there is no cause to delete them. If you're still want to delete them, then you need make a case on a source-by-source basis for deleting each. Writing "the [institution name]" when the name contains "Academy", "Society", "Association", "School", or a similar term is more idiomatic in English for most institutions; just using "[institution name]" in mid-sentence for such names is usually another example of signage-style "telegraphic writing" not encyclopedic writing. "Wikipedia" and other names that have no structural similarity to "Khan Academy" are false analogies. All that said, the evidence below that Khan Academy's own material strongly favors just "Khan Academy" not "the Khan Academy" is pretty compelling, so I think your no-the edit in this case is okay. But please do not generalize it and go removing "the" from in front of institution names all over the place. I agree with Ldm1954 that you seem to be playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU games on citation issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I won't do that again. However:

1. I believe we should note that these are US and Chinese regulations. I don't see how these were "questioning" by just specifying the country that has these standards and I still think the part about testing machines should be removed since it's only attached to a single primary (promotional?) source.
2. Khan Academy does not use "the". You can see their official website, their Khan Academy Wikipedia article, and the citations cited by that article (though there is one notable exception from the Washington Post but they also use "Khan Academy" after the first paragraph).
3. If I'm reading the WP:CITETRIM (essay) right, bundling is not the only way to resolve; it is only used when there is a good reason to keep all citations, which I believe there isn't. CITEBUNDLE the guideline doesn't say it should be the only way to resolve either.
4. I don't see what other result of the RfC is. And anyways it should probably be closed since there's no new or expected activity.

Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"we should note that these are US and Chinese regulations": That's already clear from the citations themselves, since they identify the publisher. The fact that we've cited regulations from two countries does not mean they are the only two countries in the world with such regulations, and we must not lead the reader into thinking so. They could be identified directly in the main text, but it has to be done in a way that makes it clear these are just two examples not an exhaustive list. As noted above, I think you've made a good case for removing "the" in front of "Khan Academy", though its entirely fine in English to write it either way (and you devote too much time to fighting with other editors over such trivial matters). "I believe there isn't ... a good reason to keep all citations" is just a subjective opinion in a vacuum, devoid of any actual rationale for deleting particular citations. If you think an RfC should be closed, the procedure is to list it at WP:ANRFC for closure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion @Aaron Liu's persistent and trivial edits are a weird form of denial of service, causing other people to do work for no purpose other than perhaps to draw attention. The edits used seem to skirt between just valid and just invalid, such that each one has to be checked and yet they can be partly justified. After many rounds the pattern emerges that these edits aren't sincere despite the claims in the Talk page. In fact the protest against reverts has the same pattern of partial apology followed by commentary and more trivial edits. I started by assuming good faith but now I don't believe the apologies either. They just exist to placate, to slow down potential action to close off this behavior.

These edits do not improve Wikipedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in making trivial edits that are part of the unopposed part after "partial apology". It is not my intention to stir disputes and at the times I edit I truly believe(d) that the edit makes the article better. I have a hard time getting the tone of my messages right, so apologies if this reply seems aggressive. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's objecting to your tone; they're objecting to the questionable changes you keep making to the content, and then the round-in-circles argumentation you engage in to defend each one of them even when multiple other editors are reverting you and giving reasons why the changes are (mostly) not improvements. This is kind of wandering into editor-behavior discussion, though, and I don't think that's helpful on article talk pages, but better suited to user talk or (if it comes to it) a noticeboard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyedits

1. There needs to be some sort of separator like "and" before "steam pipes".
2. I think emphasizing "against the air" and "against the atmosphere" makes it clear to the reader what interaction exactly is causing triboelectricity, especially the projectiles one.
3. The chemical tank one should use the active voice, either the previous version or "while a flammable chemical is filling it".
4. "spark fires" is enough as the reader can figure out the process itself; we already said "flammable chemical". A lot of this article's language is overly verbose.
5. "creating" and "and can generate" means essentially the same. There is always some voltage generated, no matter how small, and my version was more succint.
6. I believe the testing machines (and the commercial sensors for the US part) are not fit for mention under their current sources. The Chinese one on medium is blatantly promotional for their specific device and the US one is less but still promotes such devices. I see no reason for their retention either.
7. "conductive" means the same as "conducting" used as an adjective and is a lot less confusing.
8. "in industry" is both grammatically incorrect and confusing. The only definition that does not use an article or the plural is "the sector of the economy consisting of large-scale enterprises", which does not make sense in these contexts. It should be either changed to the plural form, changed with a mention of the specific industry, or removed.
9. I'm not sure why we need to specify self-destruct signals which are covered under communications or that nanogenerators harvest energy.
10. Tribocharging can occur in any weather condition. "favor" brings across the meaning much better.
11. "for instance" requires surrounding commas a comma at the front to be grammatically correct. This disrupts the sentence flow, so I believe "such as" which requires no commas is much better.
12. "normally" duplicates the meaning of "Most".

Aaron Liu (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You are not a native English speaker. Please stop making statements which are inappropriate, change the sense, result in WP:OR, or are not WP:NPOV. As just two examples where you are not understanding,

• "steam and water jets" are connected to "cleaning" and have nothing to do with "loading and unloading".
• "Most" and "normally" are different.

I won't respond further. Please find a page where native speakers are not involved. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not see which of my edits have OR or POV. For the first one, it doesn't matter whether or not they are connected, not including a separator is incorrect grammar. For the second one, "most" and "normally" both mean "most of the time" in this context; I do not see what distinction you're trying to provoke. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. In terms of you incorrect suggestions:

1. As stated above, "and" is an incorrect connector for this sentence.

2. Against the air or atmosphere adds information which is not documented, so is unsourced WP:OR.

3. Please read the current form.

4. "Spark fires" is not valid English. It is a spark that ignited a fire.

5. "Can generates" means that they may. Your version states that they always do, which is unjustified WP:OR.

6. The fact that these instruments are required and available is relevant.

7. Conductive and conducting are equivalent, there is no rationale to your edit.

8. "In industry" is standard.

9. Simple communications is different and less severe than self-destruct signals.

9.b Please look up what a Nanogenerator is, it is not atransducer as you imply.

10. A wrong statement about flights, it is water/rain/weather related. Please read the source.

11. "For instance" and "such as" are similar but different. There is no rationale for your edit.

12. "Normally" implied that something is not the case only in exceptional cases. "Most" is different. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

1. And as stated above there is no reason to believe being separated somehow prevents the validity of a separator. The way the current sentence is worded implies that steam engines stands as its own second element instead of being part of the second element with the rest of the sentence.
2. bigger sigh. Do I really have to provide a source that helicopter blades move against AIR? Here's one as valid as your ones on testing machines. Plus, for the atmosphere one, the source provided already says electric charges are transferred from the surface of the flying projectiles to the dust as a result of the collision with the atmospheric air stream. In fact the helicopter one also has it in-source Particles present in the air and coming in contact with helicopter rotor blades while the helicopter is in flight cause an increase in the static-electricity charging current and result in an increase in the accumulated voltage on the helicopter.
3. I don't see how that is a response
4. Collins: If something sparks, sparks of fire or light come from it.
5. It is my understanding that no matter how small there is always some generated due to the triboelectric effect. Is there a case where it generates zero voltage? Either way the source's language (see above) also implies that it always generates voltage.
6. I think instruments for testing every single example here exist but even if we discard that element your statement on testing equipment has to be attributed to non-promotional secondary sources.
7. If you think so why would you change it? And they are not exactly the same, gerunds are more confusing that existing adjectives. Changing it to "conductive" improves understanding.
8. I cannot find any information online on this expression.
9. Alright then, this was a very small thing either way.
10. I did not say anything about flights and the source doesn't mention anything about water/rain either. I guess you're talking about where it says it contacts with clouds, but aren't these (and actually rain and water too) also weather conditions favoring tribocharging?
11. Could you elaborate? My dictionary says they have the same meaning.

Aaron Liu (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

1. There are no steam engines.

2. You want to add air, then include in your response dust which is the Kopp–Etchells effect and is different. There are many uncertainties in what is going on, please research peer reviewed primary sources. You are doing WP:OR, not WP:NPOV which is not allowed. The form used is deliberately vague.

4. Since when does tribocharge give a spark of fire?

5. Your version is unsourced WP:OR, making conclusions beyond the cited source.

6. Nothing says that noting the existence of commercial instruments is forbidden, that would be silly.

10. Again, you are broadening the statement without justification. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I meant steam pipes. If steam pipes are a part of the cleaning machines element, then since cargo and pipelines during loading and unloading and steam pipes and water jets from cleaning machines are different elements there should be an "and" or "or" in between and the comma should be removed. If we use "and" then "friction between" also needs to be duplicated.
2. The dust thing is from the flying projectiles source which specifically says it's the triboelectric effect. If you're talking about "particles present in the air" for the helicopter one, I just realized that the entire article (incl. abstract) doesn't talk about triboelectricity (only static-electricity) and the helicopter entry should be removed from the article.
4. The electric spark ignites sparks of fire.
5. The article cited only uses the present tence (which imply it is always happening). You are making conclusions beyond the cited source by implying that there are cases where the rotor blades do not generate voltage.
6. It isn't, but it's kinda unrelated and even beyond that WP:RS dictates that such advertising sources can't be used.
10. Could you elaborate? AFAIK you brought up flights and rain without much context. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have listed this at 3O. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You can list whatever you want, I cannot stop you. I am sure that Johnbarton, SMcCandlish and perhaps others such as Quondum and Headbomb will have an opinion, as they have all edited this article and sometimes reverted your edits. As I and others have said, WP:1AM Ldm1954 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As I have said many time before, just that I have been overruled in one issue does not mean I am automatically wrong in all future issues. I also think suddenly pinging people is disruptive to the very 3O process I just tried to do. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally in agreement with Ldm1954 on this, though not presently inclined to re-argue it all, number by number. In general, it looks like what is going on here is a mixture of: A) a non-native English speaker trying to "correct" things that are not wrong and to employ a rather robotic approach to "concision" that is subtly changing the actual meaning of the material, and who is not listening to anyone when told that these changes are not helping. And B) WP:OR based on assumptions and "my understanding", with failure to actually read the source material. Both of these seem to be the Dunning–Kruger effect in full swing. I'm also detecting some game-playing here; the editor tried to censor Collins Dictionary out of the article as supposedly not good enough, and then is trying to cite the same work to defend their rather strange "spark fires" locution. Also, WP:3O will not work here, since it only for dispute between two editors. There is also nothing wrong with pinging back previous participants in a discussion to try to resolve the same discussion again because it has continued despite their previous attempts to see it resolved. Someone who does not understand the difference between "most" ('over 50%') and "normally" ('usually, with few exceptions') is not in a position to keep arguing over and over again to make subtle changes to the English used in the article; WP:CIR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop

As has been stated multiple times, you are not a native speaker and you are continuing to make edits which change sense and/or are grammatically wrong. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not grammatically wrong. List items need parallel construction, which means their verb tenses much be the same and since the list's structure is a verb that will follow "to" all list items must begin with a present tense verbs. Semicolons are simply not used for list items. For sense changing may you suggest a correct and clear sense? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As has been mention too many times by User:JohnJBarton, User:SMcCandlish as just two, you are not a native speaker. Wikipedia:Competence is required, ,Wikipedia:Speakers of other languages, Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we address the edits first? How are these contributions grammatically wrong? Would you kindly suggest a better sense that is also clear for the parts where you think it changed sense? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I will respond once, and once only:

1. Using "for instance China and other places. For instance" is bad style as it repeats "for instance". Repeating is typically used for emphasis, but herein that is not appropriate.

2. The papers by Shaw are in the past, so only past tense should be used.

3. "Anomalies" and "failures" are different, please read Shaw's papers to understand what he means by anomalies.

4. The terms "due to" and "from" are different. Due to is strongly causal.

5. Substituting "metals against" for "different elements" is incorrect, please read the reference.

6. "charging under" is incorrect use of English, it must be "charging for". Ldm1954 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Ah, ok.
2. Problem is the entire construction starts with "...he was one of the first to...", so past tense is not appropriate as it's in the infinitive form and this construction also makes it clear that it's in the past. For example, you can't say "...he was one of the first to analyzed in detail..." or "...to also showing that heat had a major effect on the tribocharging...". You have to change all of these to the present tense to match the infinitive form.
3. During my second edit to that part I read it. Two of the mentions of "anomalous" point to heat's effect and the other two point to "anomalous" behavior of liquid mercury. You can see in that edit that I didn't treat it as the same as failings and wrote "different behavior of liquid mercury" in its place.
4. "From" can also have that meaning but I don't really care about this one.
5. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the elements I see tested in that paper are metals. If there indeed are non-metal elements then how about we change it to "by rubbing different elements against silica"?
6. It's not incorrect. "for... conditions" means something else while "under... conditions" means the thing is experiencing some external conditions. I don't think this is as important as the other points though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As an addendum, while 5% of your edits are useful, and perhaps another 5-10% are irrelevant so can be left, the other 85-90% are wrong. I do not have the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. Per Wikipedia:WoT you need a carbon credit. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, I see no reason to remove "For instance" or "exact" and the current form of that "Combined" sentence is grammatically wrong and the "which is" is redundant. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still just WP:NOTGETTINGIT. The fact that you make about 5% useful edits while the rest of your changes are erroneous or at best pointless, means you need to find something more constructive to do. At this point, I seriously think you need to be topic-banned from this article, because it is clear that you will not listen and will not stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

That cat photo is genius, kudos.