User talk:DavRosen/Flow Archive 1

Sorry, but I see some problem with your activity here... It seems to me that some of your items and properties are original research and thus it is not desirable. Or do you have some sound sources for your classification scheme? I don't want to say you're doing completely wrong but I cannot understand some of your classifications...

I understand your point. I'm pretty new here so I may be making some mistakes. I tried to start out relatively slowly so others could correct me but was perhaps overly emboldened by seeing only a small number of reversions or comments so that I started making too many changes or not thinking them through or researching them enough.

In trying to record some (often well-known) relationships between existing items, I've sometimes found that the only way to do so is to define subclasses or superclasses in order to express the relationship using existing properties that I'm aware of. But I can see that I might have created some statements that are not well-established or need references, and without these properties some of the items wouldn't be needed either.

Also there might be ways to use existing properties (or by creating one or two new properties?) to express some of these relationships without creating new items just to do so, and maybe you or others can point out some instances of such a situation.

In any case I would of course be glad to discuss any statements (or items) that might need references or that might not represent established knowledge. ~~~~

Oh, also it sometimes wasn't clear whether a statement would be correct without making the label or description less ambiguous, but I can see that I might have narrowed some of them down in a way that could be considered original research. I'll try to correct some of these, although probably not today as I'm getting busy with other commitments.

Do you agree that "antiparticle" as a concept/operation/relationship should perhaps be a separate item from "antiparticle: as a class whose instances are specific particles such as positrons and antiprotons but does not include protons and does not even include photons because these are seldom classified as "antiparticles" per se, or as "particles/antiparticles" even though they are antiparticles of themselves?

I'm guessing that you have doubts about whether antimatter has baryon or lepton number < 0? I had thought an object containing 3 antibaryons and 2 baryons was considered antimatter rather than matter. But perhaps the object is neither matter nor antimatter because it contains both? I didn't intend to add original research, but it may have been based on a misunderstanding by me of the established definitions.

I am sorry, you are too fast. Half of my watchlist is your edits, I have no enough time to analyze all of them...

Please see Help:Description. Descriptions aren't supposed to be very long.