User talk:Ozzwah

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Ozzwah. Thank you for your work on Fluorescence upconversion. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

the page is still too rough. Almost all of the Description is unsourced, and as currently written is original research WP:Opinion which is not allowed. Also a section "Secondary sources" is not standard in the English Wikipedia, they should all be inline. Indeed, secondary sources are strongly preferred.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Well, this is the first page I write so I wanted to see how it works before making a final version.

You say that the page is still too rough...in what sense? I do not want to give a lot of pages full of formulae so I tried to put the essential ideas in as little space as possible.

You also say that the text is unsourced. I could add a thousand references but that will not make it easier to read will it?

I will add the most important ones of course but what number is reasonable?

I do not understand the remark about "Secondary sources"; I copied this from another Wiki page. Shall I take it away?

More important; I still need to add a figure or two but I do not know how to do it. The "add figure" button only rejects my jpg figure.

Can you advice me please?

Bests

Thomas G. Ozzwah (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Fluorescence upconversion moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Fluorescence upconversion. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and see talk page message. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Ldm1954 This is very irritating - I do not even know where to find the "fluorescence upconversion" page I started....

:(

Thomas G. Ozzwah (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It is at Draft:Fluorescence upconversion, which is in fact in the title of this automated message. In terms of your prior questions:

1. It was rough in the sense of being a very incomplete page. It is standard to create a new page in your own Sandbox, see WP:About the sandbox, or in Draft:XYZ (for page XYZ) while you are preparing. Then submit it for review (preferred if you are new to Wikipedia).
2. Yes, the other page (on DNA fluorescence) has the wrong format. Try Fluorescence or one of mine, Electron diffraction or a short one still being tweaked Icosahedral twins.
3. In Fluorescence all significant statements/paragraphs have sources. It is not a question of number, it is a question of verification. Please read WP:RS and WP:Opinion. Even if a statement is correct, you can't use it unless it is backed by an independent source.
4. Secondary sources are reviews. They are preferred and should be used inline. Papers are primary siurces. Undergrad texts are tertiary sources. Blogs and Wikipedia itself cannot be used.
5. For Figures, I donate them to Wikipedia if they are mine or CC. If they are neither you cannot use them. To upload an image directly ask at WP:TEAHOUSE, I never do that.
6. Be careful to be neutral (WP:NPOV) and don't write a guide WP:NOTATEXTBOOK.
7. Read WP:! so you are aware of the pitfalls. Turgid but important is WP:MOS.

Ldm1954 (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Correction: donate images to Wikipedia Commons Ldm1954 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot.

My intentions were never to write a textbook, fu is only a rather obscure technique, but I see what you mean.

Still, I rather prefer many short pages than one huge covering many topics.

And I am still not sure about how to handle the figures.

I have a jpg that I have made myself - do I have to upload it separately first? If so, where?

Bests,

Thomas G Ozzwah (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As i said, I donate my images to Wikimedia commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome , for other options ask at the teahouse Ldm1954 (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

fluorescence upconversion

@Ldm1954: Dear Dr. Marks, I am continuing trying to improve the "fluorescence upconversion" page but I do not feel ready for publishing yet. I compare with your pages (beautiful) and notice that you try to avoid formulae as much as possible. Personally, I think a simple formula tells more than hundreds of words, but is there a strict recommendation to avoid formulae? Bests, Thomas G. Ozzwah (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

There is certainly no recommendation to avoid formulae. I tend to avoid them because I always have difficulty with explaining math in lectures or even in class -- that is just my preference. Go ahead and use them. (Borrowing from a statement someone else made about a page that was full of equations "read through MOS:MATH and especially MOS:MATH#NOWE (which covers more than just "we")." Ldm1954 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Fluorescence upconversion has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fluorescence upconversion. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fluorescence upconversion (June 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ozzie10aaaa was: 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fluorescence upconversion and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Ozzwah! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fluorescence upconversion (August 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WeirdNAnnoyed was: 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fluorescence upconversion and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)