Talk:Stress triaxiality

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 31 August 2020 by reviewer SL93 (talk · contribs).

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Material too technical and self-citation

@Klon1000 Thanks for all of your effort on this page. However, the format of the material is not within the standards of Wikipedia. If I get some time I will try to edit without reducing the knowledge you added. The page should start with a short introduction on the definition of stress triaxiality before going into things such as history and technical depth. It is also frowned upon to do self-citation with the exception of relevant images. I am not familiar with the work of Wierzbicki who you also have cited significantly on the page without discussion the fundamental work on stress triaxiality decades before Wierzbicki started publishing. Bob Clemintime (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bob,

Thank you for your comments. I am a scientist and I made the entry compatible with scientific publications format. If this is format not compatible with Wikipedia standard then I will welcome your help to make it compatible. The question where one should start talking about something is a matter of taste and tastes you cannot discuss. I personally believe that starting from the beginning is a good approach. When it comes for self-citation. I have considerably contributed to scientific development of the concept of triaxiality factor. This is my original research work. So, how I can report this work, reliably if I do not refer the reader to my own work? I do not see any "frowning" here. Naturally, I could restrain myself from writing anything on wikipedia and wait until somebody else will notice my work, understand it and properly describe an refer to it on wikipedia. This could take years in my opinion, and it is not the best approach I believe. I will greatly appreciate whenever you will make the entry still better then it is at present. Whenever, I will find that our approaches are totally different then I will remove all my personal contribution material from the entry that you have created. Whenever you believe that my contribution is not according to your tastes please restore the original entry content that you have created. I have nothing against it.

Sincerely yours,

Andrzj Ziółkowski

You can also contact me under my email aziolk@ippt.pan.pl whenever you will want to discuss some subject matter issues connected with triaxiality factor. Klon1000 (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Klon1000 Hi Andrzj, I will try to work some on this article over the next month or so. You are right that the particular structure of the article is a matter of taste. However, as anyone can edit an article it often works best to work towards a common encyclopedia type structure. See the Integral page for an example of a common structure. This page (Help:Your first article) has some useful information on editing Wikipedia and includes some information about the risks of self-citation. I do not doubt your knowledge in the field and appreciate your willingness to contribute to public knowledge. Bob Clemintime (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to reflect the same: the article needs an intro definition.~~~ Mavigogun (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Klon1000 Hi Andrzj,

I have re-added the intro section I had originally created for the page with some small improvements. I was hoping an independent editor could resolve the conflict, but it has been close to a year without action. I really think without the into it becomes very difficult for a reader without a strong background in the subject to understand the basic concept and the relevance of the page. I welcome any simplifications to the intro that you or others can make.

I still think you should give your self-citation some additional consideration. I will not remove it myself because I greatly appreciate all the contributions you made to the page and I would want an independent editor to make an assessment. Regards, ~~~ Bob Clemintime (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]