Talk:Null result

message: The claim that "Generally, a null result is a result which is null (nothing): that is, the absence of an observable result" is incompatible with the definitions as used in statistics, science logic and law; thus I doubt that it's correct. I'll remove it if it isn't backed up by a citation in the coming week. Harald88 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't do so unless you have proper references to justify your change. --Philosophus 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Philosophus, obviously you aren't familiar with the Wikipedia rules: please read the Wikipedia rules for inclusion WP:OR, WP:V. What can't be traced must be deleted, especially when (as is here the case) it contradicts sourced information (even a banner exists to put attention to such defects). Harald88 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, I may have worded that poorly. Since that is the current definition listed, I meant that you shouldn't change it without having proper references for your replacement, since otherwise we would be in the same situation. Removing it without adding something in its place would be very difficult. Also, please take a look at other editors' contributions before accusing them of ignorance of policy. Unfortunately, my edits to the Aetherometry debate no longer show up, as the talk pages have been deleted. --Philosophus 23:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no problem in  replacing this erroneous paraphrase by one that is based on the given definitions in the article, nor do I have a difficulty with the wording. But you're right (and I had not noticed yet) that nothing is sourced. I remember having seen a source (that's why I know which definition errs), and I'll try to find it back and include it. Harald88 06:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "general" meaning?! 

message: ... it would result in an unspecified program critical mass ejection error! -- Chris 18:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If this article were accurate... 

message: I've changed the article from saying that a null result is evidence for the null hypothesis, to just saying that it fails to reject the null hypothesis. For example, a null result may arise simply because the sample size was too small. — Alan✉ 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  null hypothesis 

message: Can a mention of the size of certain aetheric strings in string theory and it's null result in detection? The characteristic length scale of strings is thought to be on the order of the Planck length. --J. D. Redding 11:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: String Detection

message: (moved the discullion abut the phrase  from my talk page here. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be know the rules, but you do not understand their purpose. A huge problem wikipedia created is propagating wrong and even fake information taken from early unreferenced wikipedia articles and spreading over internet like fire. Yes, "null result" may be "nullus resultus" in Latin, just as as me being Stanislaus Lemus. But this does not mean that the word was derived from Latin. I found no evidence. If you have references for this happening, you are very welcome, otherwise, please do not add unreferenced information into wikipedia. Deinde coeli enarrant gloriam wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you thoroughly read my edit, you would see that I am not claiming that nullus resultus is the source of the saying. All I did was correct the original wrong source. Before I edited it, it said that it came from something it didn't. Are you understanding what I'm saying? I never claimed that nullus resultus was the source of the phrase. Issacus Divus (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this case Latin (together Greek and Polish) is irrelevant, unless reliable sources discuss the issue. By the way, I don't have to thoroughly read unreferenced text to see that is is unreferenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

text: P.S. Please discuss articles in articles' talk pages, where other people may join the discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Meaning you are far from understanding what referencing means. You did make an unreferenced claim, actually a piece of original research, quoted at the top of this section. That you found "nullus resultarum" at a couple of dubious websites (which, judging by timestamps, most probably blindly copied it from wikipedia) not at all means it is "popularly given as". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing