User talk:StarryGrandma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


RfA[edit]

New Zealand TW-17.svg Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Dear StarryGrandma,

I received your email regarding my attempt to add the new entry titled "Dan H. Yaalon". I have the whole text and illustrations in order to insert this entry to Wikipedia, however, I find it too difficult to do, as I'm not that good with computers. I kindly ask your help with adding this entry to Wikipedia. I have no idea how can contact you, hoping that you see this message and agree to contact me again (via my email, as you just did) and leave any email address or phone by which I can contact you. Best wishes, Danny Danitkin (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Danitkin and thank you. I will answer this at your talk page. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cassantec AG[edit]

It appears that you declined this just s I was posting an AFC comment, which got overwritten. I have now restored it. I ask that you take a look back at this, and at my review of the sources on Draft talk:Cassantec AG. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel, you were great to look through all of those references. I had looked at the just the last references added. The award article looked fine, but as you say depends on the reputation of the award. The December 9, 2015 article at MachinenMarkt was based on the December 7, 2015 press release on the company website. The dates are confusing since the 9/12/2105 (European style date) got translated to 12 August 2015. At that point I decided to ask the editor to pick out two references since Google translate mixed with my limited German is a slow process. As I look further, the three part article by a free-lance writer in MachinenMarkt could well be independent. The two-part Electrotechnik article by Sariana Kunze on Decemer 12, 2015 shows what a press release is supposed to do, trigger a look at the company. She interviewed a professor and provided some context as well as interviewing the company spokesman. I was hoping to have the article author pick out which was independent and which wasn't. It is a very interesting company, though young. The article should say more about what it does, since there are references for that. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well it did say more before the copied material was removed. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi StarryGrandma, I listed two independent and notable sources where you specified, and I added more sources. The sources in which you point out that the writer is associated with the company are written by the founder of the company, so I thought it was more directly informational than advertisement. Would you mind having another look? Thanks so much, Daninguyen0 (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi StarryGrandma, Checking in again to check if you could rereview the CassantecAG site? Thanks so much, Daninguyen0 (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Will do, Daninguyen0. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your research and coordination[edit]

Thank you! I've used that example in my further comments over at Wikidata. Actually showing that people at individual wikis are trying to remedy gaps in the process hopefully will add a bit of urgency at Wikidata to finishing the implementation, which is incomplete unless plain editors can contribute corrections.

Also the 'uses' vs. 'tracks' question may be resolved simply by again referring to that same template. Looks like 'uses' is correct until you know for sure that 'tracks' is also needed. Thank you again. Shenme (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

For a second there I thought your username was ScaryGrandma.

Whispering 21:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You deleted my change erroneously. Please let us do not start a Revert War![edit]

I just noted that you deleted my informative change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copernican_principle&oldid=prev&diff=764123375

Yes, I didn't provide a cite. Your appropriate response would be, in decreasing order of preference: (1) To help Wikipedia by locating an appropriate citation and adding it. (2) To add a "citation needed" note. (3) To send a message to me, asking me to provide a cite. Not on the list is to delete my informative change without even notifying me, and thereby to degrade the quality of information at Wikipedia.

Just because I did not include a citation does not make my change incorrect!

To the contrary, I would be more inclined to take the time to hunt for a citation if I needn't worry about counterproductive edits such as yours.

Thanks in advance :-) Jamesdowallen (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This happened back in February. If you had just put the material in I might have done so. But you removed part of a sentence and the two references supporting it, and replaced it with an unsupported statement. Your edit summary was Correct error. Remove dead and pay-per-view links. However the links were not dead and it does not matter if sources are behind a paywall. Most academic journals are behind a paywall. There was no need to remove what you did to add a sentence about Bruno. As to response, please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. When reverted go to the talk page of the article and start a discussion. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

So because you disapproved of part of my edit, you also removed the factual correction I made to restore the old erroneous version. Got it.Jamesdowallen (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I am copying this discussion to the talk page of the article, Talk:Copernican principle, where it should take place after a revert. Please continue there. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, StarryGrandma. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Excellent work on Adrian Bejan page. It definitely needed an expert work. Mre env (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Mre env. It was very interesting work. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-12[edit]

14:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #292[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #293[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #294[edit]

A note[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
Content mine logo.png

Metadata on the March[edit]

From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing.

Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost.

SVG pedestrian crosses road
Zebra crossing/crosswalk, Singapore

Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata.

For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met.

Links[edit]


To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #295[edit]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

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

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

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

Wikidata weekly summary #296[edit]