User talk:Dr.BeauWebber

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Dr.BeauWebber, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Berland (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help request re Gibbs–Thomson effect[edit]

{{help me}} Thanks Berland. I have done a couple of minor edits, but am now creating a couple of more detailed pages in my user space. I have a problem re one : "User:Dr.BeauWebber/Gibbs-Thomson Equation / Effect" - there is a already a "Gibbs-Thomson Effect" page, but whoever has written it does not seem to realise there are significant differences between various equations they are lumping together as the same - Should I just create a "Gibbs-Thomson Equation" page and ignore the existing page, or what ? cheers, Beau Dr.BeauWebber (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.BeauWebber, I am looking into your help request, and will respond here very soon. Thanks, Chzz ► 19:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answering generically (without looking at the two pages) that would not be a good idea. When pages exist with problems, the first step is to summarize the issues on the talk page of the article. In an ideal situation, others will be persuaded, work with you to come up with potential edits to improve the article. In other situations, you might get others to agree that there are problems, and fixing them is not as easy as simply existing the existing text. If participants reach a consensus, one could create a draft subpage to collaborate on an improved version, and if consensus is reach that the improved version is better, it can be used to replace the existing page with an edit, which preserves the editing history.

I've seen both approaches work.

I'll now look at the two pages in question, and see if I can offer more specific advice (but Chzz will probably beat me to it, as he is faster than I am).--SPhilbrick T 19:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links: User:Dr.BeauWebber/Gibbs-Thomson Equation / Effect · Gibbs–Thomson effect

My advice, in this case, is to boldly expand and inprove the existing article, Gibbs–Thomson effect.

Merge your new material into it; you can copy/paste from your draft.

I do not think that the specific "Equation for particles", "Equation for liquids in pores", and the origins of the theory are worth separate articles; instead, I think adding them in subheadings to the existing article makes sense.

Please do not bother to repeat the subject title in the subheadings - ie, instead of == Gibbs-Thomson equation for liquids in pores == you should put just == Equation for liquids in pores ==

Try to make the first part of the article (before the first == subeading ==) - the lede - into a summary of the whole.

Feel free to remove, rewrite, and otherwise incorporate the existing material; do not be concerned about bold changes. Every edit remains in the history of the page, and if others do object to changes, they can be discussed on Talk:Gibbs–Thomson effect.

An unrelated note, regarding your user page: if that is also a draft article (about yourself), please read WP:AUTO and exercise appropriate care.

If you need any further help, please don't hesitate to use another {{helpme}}. And "Welcome to Wikipedia" from me, too. Best, Chzz ► 19:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some more specific comments:

Feel free to adopt the advice of Chzz - I personally am a little less bold
I note that the article is short, as well as your draft, so that makes things a bit easier, there isn't a need for a formal subpage attached to the article, your user space draft works quite well.
The existing article has no references.
My suggestion is to make a proposal at the article talk page - indicate that you have prepared a version that you feel is better, point the readers to it, and suggest that you intend to replace the existing article with your draft, unless there is any disagreement within a few days.
My guess is that there will be no disagreement, and you could simply replace the existing article with your draft.
If you are not sure how to do that, ask me and I'll do it for you.
I urge you to add a talkback message to Karnesky, who wrote the original article in 2005, but is still active, having edited as recently as yesterday. This is NOT required, but would be polite. If you don't know how to do a talkback, it is easy, but I'll do it for you if you ask.--SPhilbrick T 19:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the doi to the Jackson citation; you are undoubtedly more familiar with it than I, so please make sure I did it correctly. I wanted to look at the article to see that the equation was rendered faithfully—I found an abstract, but not the complete article. I'm guessing there isn't a free version available, If you know of one, please point me to it.--SPhilbrick T 19:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for this detailed help - I will ask first - thanks to the link to Karnesky - have a lot to learn about how to find my way around wikis ... I particularly want to ask re the equation in the existing article - I know the concepts but not that particular equation, and am not sure about the best place for it. Re the Jackson article, I have a scanned PDF, but now could not even track down the DOI (thanks), although I was offered the article linker from WoS. I will contact McKenna if I still have the email. Dr.BeauWebber (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re user page : WP:AUTO read and existing text on user page deleted Dr.BeauWebber (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For maths questions (in general), Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics can be helpful; for more article-related queries, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics is good, and you can ask things on their talk page.

Re. user-page - thanks, but note that it is absolutely fine to say a bit about yourself on that page; you don't even need references. User-pages are not Encyclopaedic articles, and so considerable leeway is permitted. So, whilst it is indeed not a good idea to start an article about yourself, there's absolutely nothing wrong in having info on your user-page. See Wikipedia:User pages. Chzz ► 12:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I put in a few comments and edits too on your new pages. You might find that science pages are sadly quite neglected on wikipedia. My field is computer science, which makes it more embarrasing, since many articles on the technologies that make wikipedia itself possible have very few editors. You are doing a good job with citations, but might look at some lede (lead in normal English, lede is a newspaper term) sections of articles to get an idea of how to set context and summarize. I would also suggest a simpler title of Themoporometry and Cryoporometry methods of measuring porosity for example. Generally the body should contain complete sentences (and equations if appropriate). W Nowicki (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated Dr.BeauWebber (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jennifer Maidman (September 21)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

Please see WP:MOS and WP:LAYOUT about how to format and layout your article. Also see WP:CIT on how to properly format citations.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jennifer Maidman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Dr.BeauWebber, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jennifer Maidman (October 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jennifer Maidman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 17:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]