Talk:Miller–Casella thermometer
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Revision[edit]
The deletion effected by XAM2175 is a malicious deletion that aims to sabotage the enrichment work. It is vandalism. Fredo038 (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Two points:
- The paragraph is not immediately relevant to the Miller–Casella thermometer, other than in mentioning the error in the measurement of the temperature of deep waters caused by the high pressures to which the thermometers were subjected. It does not explain this error any further, making it unhelpful. Further, it's inserted in a position where it breaks the flow between the two existing paragraphs:
This design assumed accurate measurements could be taken as long as the water closer to the surface of the ocean was always warmer than that below. ... Scientists aboard HMS Challenger later questioned this assumption ...
. I therefore believe that it actively damages the article and have removed it on those grounds. - I direct your attention to Wikipedia's Policy on Vandalism, which states that
any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism
. Given my good-faith rationale for my edit, your referring to my actions as vandalism is incorrect. I ask you to retract it.
- The paragraph is not immediately relevant to the Miller–Casella thermometer, other than in mentioning the error in the measurement of the temperature of deep waters caused by the high pressures to which the thermometers were subjected. It does not explain this error any further, making it unhelpful. Further, it's inserted in a position where it breaks the flow between the two existing paragraphs:
- XAM2175 (T) 12:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- You write that you believe. So you admit that your judgment is entirely subjective. I do not believe, but I bring scientific facts that are known, sourced and that enrich the content. I have no problem with the fact that the paragraph can still be improved, but instead of discussing it with a view to improvement, you estimate all alone without any scientific argument to delete the work of others without any constructive proposal in return. This is not acceptable nor serious and your action cannot be called kind. I am always open to make improvements but it is still necessary to ask for it before making trials of intention. I am always ready to have a discussion based on scientific arguments with anyone. It's up to you. Fredo038 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd invite you to recognise that you're exercising subjective judgement when you say that your additions
enrich the content
. After all, addingscientific facts that are known [and] sourced
is easy – but I think you'd agree that it wouldn't be very helpful if I added to this article scientific facts on a topic like the geology of the Moon. - Instead, to actually improve things here, I would want to see more information about these thermometers. How do they differ from ordinary Six's thermometers? What is the mechanism by which high pressure affects the reading? Why – in basic terms – is it wrong to assume that the water of the oceans is always warmest nearest the surface? Leave the stuff about Peter Tait's fundamental studies to Tait's article.
- Ideally, given that your contribution history suggests that you're engaging in reference spamming, you would also do this without citing any work by Frédéric Aitken. XAM2175 (T) 21:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is extremely easy to answer the questions you ask. Why don't you write about these questions instead of criticizing the contributions of others. Science is not divided into watertight compartments and it is precisely thanks to interactions that it is built. You have your own fixed ideas and you reproach others for your own behavior which is contrary to the very notion of encyclopedia. For the moment I see that you are not making any progress. As for your comparison with the Moon, these are completely inappropriate comments. Fredo038 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have neither the time for nor the interest in having a protracted debate with you about this. As far as I'm concerned, I improved the article by removing from it a paragraph that did not contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic, and I will do so again here and in other places too, because it is a legitimate form of editorial activity here on Wikipedia, and also a necessary one. I actively invite you again to consider contributing to this article material that does further our readers' understanding of the topic at hand. XAM2175 (T) 12:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- You confuse "legitimate form of editorial activity" with a malicious and incoherent activity where you contradict yourself. Your question "Why - in basic terms - is it wrong to assume that the water of the oceans is always warmest near the surface?" is answered in full detail on the Thermocline page and if I follow your reasoning with Peter Tait, it has no place here. The corresponding action "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content" is in the very definition of vandalism in Wikipedia. Also, your comments about reference spaming are meaningless if this is the only summary reference on the subject. It's like removing the CRC reference from the wikipedia pages about all the atoms in the Mendeleev's table. Finally you confuse the objectivity of the sourced facts with the subjectivity of your comments. Fredo038 (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- You have chosen to continue this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard § Miller–Casella thermometer. XAM2175 (T) 12:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- You confuse "legitimate form of editorial activity" with a malicious and incoherent activity where you contradict yourself. Your question "Why - in basic terms - is it wrong to assume that the water of the oceans is always warmest near the surface?" is answered in full detail on the Thermocline page and if I follow your reasoning with Peter Tait, it has no place here. The corresponding action "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content" is in the very definition of vandalism in Wikipedia. Also, your comments about reference spaming are meaningless if this is the only summary reference on the subject. It's like removing the CRC reference from the wikipedia pages about all the atoms in the Mendeleev's table. Finally you confuse the objectivity of the sourced facts with the subjectivity of your comments. Fredo038 (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have neither the time for nor the interest in having a protracted debate with you about this. As far as I'm concerned, I improved the article by removing from it a paragraph that did not contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic, and I will do so again here and in other places too, because it is a legitimate form of editorial activity here on Wikipedia, and also a necessary one. I actively invite you again to consider contributing to this article material that does further our readers' understanding of the topic at hand. XAM2175 (T) 12:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is extremely easy to answer the questions you ask. Why don't you write about these questions instead of criticizing the contributions of others. Science is not divided into watertight compartments and it is precisely thanks to interactions that it is built. You have your own fixed ideas and you reproach others for your own behavior which is contrary to the very notion of encyclopedia. For the moment I see that you are not making any progress. As for your comparison with the Moon, these are completely inappropriate comments. Fredo038 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd invite you to recognise that you're exercising subjective judgement when you say that your additions
- You write that you believe. So you admit that your judgment is entirely subjective. I do not believe, but I bring scientific facts that are known, sourced and that enrich the content. I have no problem with the fact that the paragraph can still be improved, but instead of discussing it with a view to improvement, you estimate all alone without any scientific argument to delete the work of others without any constructive proposal in return. This is not acceptable nor serious and your action cannot be called kind. I am always open to make improvements but it is still necessary to ask for it before making trials of intention. I am always ready to have a discussion based on scientific arguments with anyone. It's up to you. Fredo038 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Two points: