User talk:Posolubile

Welcome!

Hi Зефр! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

Edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Spontaneous emission does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please use edit summaries, and if necessary, open a topic on a talk page. Reverting without any explanation is just rude. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, next time I will. But isn't it also rude, to judge the article on the language which you don't speak (without mentioning the particular reason, why you didn't like it)? If you actually read it somehow, could you please rewrite it into a better version? I actually spent several days trying to collect the information about different types of BICs and their classification, also thinking about how to make it easier to read. Even it is not perfect, could be a good step to edit it further. Classification is important because when different scientists talk about BIC, they may mean very different things, sometimes very far from the original type proposed by Wigner and von Neumann. Classification is sorely lacking in the English version. Зефр (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. And I also apologize for the judgement on the ruwiki article. I did not mean to offend, and I think the article in question is definitely above average in quality. Thanks for writing it!

I am not a great fan of translation request templates, and would like to see them only on very select articles, where the source article either has been recognized with some quality label (preferably featured), or is about some concept for which english-language sources are scarce. Here I am still not convinced of the usefulness of the template, since there aren't that many russian-speaking physics editors in enwiki with an interest on this specific topic, so it most likely you who is going to do the translation anyway. But I'll let you decide whether the template is useful or not.

I do encourage you to add the information about the classification of the BICs, I agree that it is important, and also interesting for a general reader. However, I find the table in the ruwiki article a bit difficult to parse. There are these subtypes in the second column, and they seem to correspond to the examples in the third column with the same number, but the structure in the table does not really support this identification. Given that the table has so much text, I would prefer it to be formatted as a running text instead, and divided to subsections. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]