可靠来源

注意到阁下在Special:Diff/76079896引用了一段短片作为来源,但该来源不属维基百科可用的WP:可靠来源(例如因为非经正式途径出版,内容亦未经审核),因为不能加入。敬希垂注,祝编安!—— 留言2023年2月22日 (三) 22:37 (UTC)回复

阁下可以引用已出版的论文、书籍作为来源,而假如影片是实验录影/数据模拟之类,文字难以表达,但有助读者理解主题的影片,符合Wikipedia:外部链接要求的话亦可加入作为外部链结(而非引用作“来源”),但单纯朗读的影片,其资讯并非必须以影片格式为载体,因此不必链结,而应引用其朗读内容的原始出处(倘若出自可靠来源)。—— 留言2023年2月22日 (三) 22:43 (UTC)回复
I added a ref to replace the original one.
https://encyclopedia.pub/video/video_detail/617
In fact, I am the author for related discussions. Thanks, -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月22日 (三) 23:49 (UTC)回复
既然此短片是adapted from另一已引用的来源,似乎未见重复引用短片(因为也是仅有朗读)的理由。引用自己著作时请留意在维基百科上WP:SELFCITE的提醒,例如此类情况下在下(&)建议避免引用该短片,以免给予其他编者一种为推销影片而引用的观感,感谢。—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:03 (UTC)回复
Hello, the video added discussions for the analogy with skiing and kayaking in both English and Chinese versions.
It should not be simply viewed as "仅有朗读". Please let me know if I can be helpful. Thanks, -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:08 (UTC)回复
不太认同阁下的见解,因为虽然有滑雪片段,但该片段与主题无关,与主题相关的提到skiing和kayaking的内容实质上仍是依赖旁白朗读文字(所以在下说“仅有朗读”),不能算是善用了“影片”此一媒体的表现方式,而应直接使用文字描述。—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:19 (UTC)回复
Skiing was first used to discuss SDIC (i.e., butterfly effect) by Prof. Lorenz (1993). We cited and added discussions in https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/13/11/1892.
Please let me know. Thanks.--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:23 (UTC)回复
直接引用该论文,会比引用影片更加符合WP:可供查证方针的要求。—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:29 (UTC)回复
A current trend is to provide a video clip to support the contents in paper.
Please see the strategy of MDPI Encyclopedia. As mentioned, the new reference was posted by MDPI Encyclopedia.
Why? For example, "skiing" was used in Lorenz (1993). Many readers were not aware of it.
Shen et al. (2022) extended the concept to include kayaking and used skiing and kayaking provided an analogy.
A staff of MDPI Encyclopedia already "reviewed" it.
Please let me know if you have additional questions or comments. Thanks, -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:36 (UTC)回复
(?)疑问“the new reference was posted by MDPI Encyclopedia.”MDPI的确有一本peer-reviewed journal称为 Encyclopedia,但影片似乎衹是发布于"Encyclopedia Pub",是user-generated content collection platform[1]而非peer-reviewed journal?假若如此,其"review"与传统审稿相比如何?(举例arxiv preprint亦要经"moderation"才能上线但WP:可靠来源指引订明此种程度的review不能使arxiv成为可靠。)另外不太确定阁下“Why? For example, "skiing" was used in Lorenz (1993). Many readers were not aware of it.”一句是指not aware of the fact that "skiing" was used in Lorenz (1993)还是not aware of what skiing is,若是后者,应考虑使用WP:内部链结或以WP:注脚说明,让读者在skiing和kayaking条目找到插图或影片,与是否在蝴蝶效应引用来源无关。—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 01:13 (UTC)回复
您也是编辑。请让我知道内容中有那些错误。我可以修改。另,有messenger或line 的帐号吗?语言讨论可能比较有效率。谢谢!--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 01:43 (UTC)回复
又,影片是根据peer reviewed的文章制成。
Encyclopedia pub 和 MDPI encyclopedia 已经正式合作。后者鼓励先透过peer review 来确认内容,然后,制造成简短的视频,于前者发表。--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 01:53 (UTC)回复
Please let me know your email address. I can forward the original email that includes the following messages:
---
Invitation to share your Video Entry on “Analogy for Chaos and Butterfly Effect” Submitted to MDPI Encyclopedia
Dear Bowen,
Thank you for the video. We have uploaded the video to the Encyclopedia,
please check the following link to confirm:
https://encyclopedia.pub/user/video_invitation/edit/593
If you do not have an account, please register first:
https://encyclopedia.pub/register
You can send us your suggestions through email or submit this video online
through the above link. We would be appreciative if the submission could be
completed within 5 days.
Encyclopedia is a free and open platform for researchers to share their
knowledge and ideas. Authors can earn credits, which can be exchanged for
MDPI vouchers, through creating, liking, editing, commenting and sharing
entries on the Encyclopedia platform.
We look forward to your contributions and hope that you will also be able to
make use of this service. If you have any suggestions or questions, please
feel free to contact us.
Kind regards,
Rita Xu
Encyclopedia Editorial Office
[email protected]
Twitter: https://twitter.com/EncyclopediaMD1
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Encyclopedia-MDPI-102056985743398
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/encyclopedia/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnvLFYQq1NTG7ulY3h8lBYA
Encyclopedia Outstanding Contributor Awards 2022 - Open for Application
https://encyclopedia.pub/announcement/view/15
--
MDPI
Postfach, CH-4020 Basel, Switzerland
Office: St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel
Tel.: +41 61 683 77 34; Fax:  +41 61 302 89 18
https://encyclopedia.pub--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 02:09 (UTC)回复
感谢澄清Encyclopedia pub和MDPI encyclopedia的关系。但尚未明白阁下所指需要引用此影片的理由为何,既然影片是同作者“根据peer reviewed的文章制成”,而已引用该论文,重复引用影片似乎不会增加可信性,反而可能属于应避免的WP:CITEBOMB“大量的引注仅仅指向一个事实⋯⋯引入的来源往往只是其他来源的转述”情况。
另一(?)疑问,Lorenz ref 13似乎未见提及bounded或finite,是否不能用于佐证“轨迹在有限范围内的特性,可由蝴蝶有限的双翼所显示”句?假如ref 13不能佐证该句,亦应移除段尾的引注13,保留段中间Lorenz观点的引注13即可。
(与编辑相关的讨论,在下倾向于维基百科公开进行,以便其他编者检视。)—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 23:33 (UTC)回复
哈啰,该影片整理了"几篇文章",是一个精简但"自我完整"(self contained)的版本,用来介绍混沌。譬如说,混沌系统的二个重要特性为:解的有界性,和正的Lyapunov exponent(LE),这两个同时成立,才能表示混沌。一个线性系统,y "=ay, a>0。可以有正的LE,但解不是无界的,因此不是混沌系统。该民谣应该属于这里种情况。我们文章内有详细讨论。许多人,没有时间阅读我们的文章。因此,我们提供一个精简的语音版本。阁下,可以审阅内容,和我们2022的两篇文章比较。若有疑虑,请指教。又,电话讨论可能比较有效。--Bwshen留言2023年2月24日 (五) 01:56 (UTC)回复
y "=ay, a>0 is a simple system for instability, mentioned by Lorenz (2008).--Bwshen留言2023年2月24日 (五) 02:23 (UTC)回复
Please also review related entries, e.g., "Butterfly effect" (English) and "Chaos Theory". If there is any inaccurate information, please let me know. Once again, we agree that scientific accuracy is important. Here is my skype bo.wen.shen. Let me know if it is convenient to chat via a phone call. A list of my papers can be found: https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/shen_publications_all.html--Bwshen留言2023年2月24日 (五) 02:27 (UTC)回复
https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/shen_publications_all.html--Bwshen留言2023年2月24日 (五) 02:31 (UTC)回复
其实中文系版本蝴蝶效应的图一,需要被修正。有机会可以聊聊。--Bwshen留言2023年2月24日 (五) 03:17 (UTC)回复
感谢说明引用影片的理由,的确有一定意义。(虽然对是否符合维基百科当前的“可靠”定义仍存疑问,但可以留待日后再考虑。)虽然整理几篇文章的二手来源为维基百科所重视,但已引用的ref 10的subsection 3.1似乎是整理了同样几篇文章,甚至更多,而影片内容大致上就是对应该节?如此“整理了"几篇文章"”似乎不是重复引用的理由。从百科全书引注方面考虑,已有详细原文,自不必再引用精简的语音版本,若有需要可考虑放在WP:外部链结
关于另一问题,在下不是质疑阁下文章内对民谣情况的定性,也不是质疑“轨迹在有限范围内的特性,可由蝴蝶有限的双翼所显示”(句1),但维基百科的引注规则是,除了scientific accuracy,还着重WP:非原创研究,还望阁下理解。该方针规定,对原始文献的诠释也需要引用二手来源,假若Lorenz 2008 (ref 13)不能直接支持句1而ref 10可以直接支持(不论是原创观点抑或对ref 13等来源的总结皆可),则句1应引用ref 10而非ref 13,所以需要向阁下请教是否属于此情况。—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 00:55 (UTC)回复
再者该网站收录"user-generated content collection platform for researchers with additional contributions published on scientific websites by competent experts"[2],除非该短片有经过编审流程,否则user-generated content按WP:可靠来源一般也要避免使用(维基百科对arxiv也是同样处理),已有更好来源(期刊)佐证同一语段的情况下,不应采用较不可靠的来源。—— 留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:14 (UTC)回复
Please let me know if the current ref [13], https://encyclopedia.pub/video/video_detail/617, posted by Encyclopedia, is good.
All materials have been published. https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/
Thanks,
-Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 00:18 (UTC)回复
(1) The video summarize many studies, including
Shen, B.-W., R. A. Pielke Sr., X. Zeng, J. Cui#, S. Faghih-Naini#, W. Paxson#, A. Kesarkar, X. Zeng, R. Atlas, 2022c: The Dual Nature of Chaos and Order in the Atmosphere. Atmosphere 13, no. 11: 1892. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13111892.
Shen, B.-W.*, R. A. Pielke Sr., X. Zeng, J. Cui, S. Faghih-Naini, W. Paxson, R. Atlas, 2022b: Three Kinds of Butterfly Effects Within Lorenz Models. Encyclopedia 2, no. 3: 1250-1259. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia2030084
Shen, B.-W.*, R. A. Pielke Sr., X. Zeng, J.-J. Baik,  S. Faghih-Naini#, J. Cui#, and R. Atlas, 2021: Is Weather Chaotic? Coexistence of Chaos and Order within a Generalized Lorenz Model. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 102(1), E148-E158. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0165.1
Shen, B.-W.*, 2019a: Aggregated Negative Feedback in a Generalized Lorenz Model. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, Vol. 29, No. 3 (2019) 1950037 (20 pages). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218127419500378
Shen, B.-W.*, 2019b: On the Predictability of 30-day Global Mesoscale Simulations of Multiple African Easterly Waves during Summer 2006: A View with a Generalized Lorenz Model. Geosciences 2019, 9(7), 281; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9070281  
In the last one, we stated
"
We first present two features of chaotic solutions, including the divergence of nearby trajectories and solution boundedness. The sensitive dependence of solutions on ICs has been illustrated using the divergence of two initial nearby trajectories within the phase space of the 3DLM.
"
(2) the above studies provided references, including many textbooks. Please read them for details.
(3) All of the materials in the video have been reviewed.
Please let me know if you find specific information that is not accurate.
I will point out the reference.
Thanks,
-Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 01:47 (UTC)回复
BTW,
"
条目应该基于来自可靠的第三方的出版物,来源应具有事实验证和准确性声誉。这意味着我们只发表具有可靠性的作者的观点,而不是解读第一手来源的维基人自己的观点。如何合适的列明来源总是依赖于情境。常识和编辑者的判断是这个过程不可或缺的一部分。下文列出一些可靠来源类型和来源可靠性问题,这不是作为一个完整的列表,仅作示例。
来源的定义
来源在维基百科中有下面三个含义:
  • 作品本身(文献,报道等)
  • 作品的作者(作者,记者等)
  • 作品的发表者(某大学出版社,某新闻社等)
三者都可以影响内容的可靠性。可靠来源可能意味着有可靠出版过程的出版物,在主题上有权威的作者,或者两者兼具。来源的可靠性应可以被常人理解。
"
Currently, I am a lead guest Editor for "Atmosphere" and an Editor for Geoscience Letters. I have reviewed more than 30 different journals. https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/shen_services.html
  • Reviewers for the following journals:
  1. Advances in Data Science and Adaptive Analysis
  2. Advances in Meteorology
  3. Animals
  4. Annales Geophysicae
  5. Atmosphere
  6. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
  7. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
  8. Atmospheric Science Letters (ASL)
  9. Chaos Solitons & Fractals (CSF)
  10. Climate Dynamics
  11. Earth Interactions
  12. Electronics
  13. Fractal and Fractional
  14. Frontiers in Earth Sciences
  15. Future Generation Computer Systems
  16. Geophysical Research Letters (GRL)
  17. Geoscience Letters
  18. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos (IJBC)
  19. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
  20. Journal of Climate
  21. Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology
  22. Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR)
  23. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing
  24. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences (JAS)
  25. Meteorological Applications
  26. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
  27. Monthly Weather Review (MWR)
  28. Nature Communication
  29. Nonlinear Dynamics
  30. Physica Scripta
  31. PLOS ONE
  32. Pure and Applied Geophysics
  33. Tellus A
  34. Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (TAO)
  35. Weather and Forecasting (WAF)
--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 02:05 (UTC)回复
维基中文版"蝴蝶效应"的讨论,有许多问题。首先,图一,最起码的修正:将attractor 改为trajectory。更重要的是,其定义不准确。经由讨论,显示,你至少同意劳伦兹2008年的看法。有关蝴蝶效应,请参考劳氏1993出版的书。而我们2022年的文章,有补充说明。阁下,如果有心改善准确性,请思考以上论述。我们可以深入讨论。(加入一个不准确页面的讨论,有一定向风险。)--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 05:38 (UTC)回复
关于图片,较难改动,可能需要制作一张新的(中文)图片,或者从c:Category:Chaos theory尝试从已有图片中,找出合适的图片替换。阁下可能误会了在下请教的问题,在下没有质疑劳伦兹2008年的看法,在下质疑的是该文没有直接支持“轨迹在有限范围内的特性,可由蝴蝶有限的双翼所显示”。假若阁下的意思是Lorenz 2008的看法,虽然没有直接写明,仍包含“轨迹在有限范围内的特性,可由蝴蝶有限的双翼所显示”一点,则正正属于需要引用其他来源作出此诠释的情况,而非引用Lorenz 2008。假若阁下认为有直接写明,请给出页码和引文。维基百科的引用是要方便查证,倘引用较不直接相关的内容,无助于读者查证,若纯属acknowledgement and attribution用途,前句已引述Lorenz 2008。—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 11:44 (UTC)回复
(1) I am working on it; (2) are you aware of the butterfly pattern solution (e.g., the first Figure of Butterfly Effect in English)? it is obvious that the butterfly wings are finite. I will keep you posted soon. -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:05 (UTC)回复
I'm not saying the wings are not finite. (I thought this is the third time I'm reiterating this.) I'm saying Lorenz 2008 never mentions this, so can't be used to support that statement.-- 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:10 (UTC)回复
To be clear, I fully agree that in File:Lorenz_attractor_yb.svg the wings are finite and this suggests the trajectory is bounded. I never say this statement is wrong. But whether the editor agrees or not means nothing on Wikipedia. We should cite suitable sources that directly supports the statement. Shen 2019 does check out this statement, while Lorenz 2008 doesn't seem to, so we should cite the former (and maybe other sources) but not the latter. Of course if Lorenz 2008 directly supports the statement we can cite it as well.—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:30 (UTC)回复
Please let me know your email address. I can forward the original email that includes the following messages:
---
Invitation to share your Video Entry on “Analogy for Chaos and Butterfly Effect” Submitted to MDPI Encyclopedia
Dear Bowen,
Thank you for the video. We have uploaded the video to the Encyclopedia,
please check the following link to confirm:
https://encyclopedia.pub/user/video_invitation/edit/593
If you do not have an account, please register first:
https://encyclopedia.pub/register
You can send us your suggestions through email or submit this video online
through the above link. We would be appreciative if the submission could be
completed within 5 days.
Encyclopedia is a free and open platform for researchers to share their
knowledge and ideas. Authors can earn credits, which can be exchanged for
MDPI vouchers, through creating, liking, editing, commenting and sharing
entries on the Encyclopedia platform.
We look forward to your contributions and hope that you will also be able to
make use of this service. If you have any suggestions or questions, please
feel free to contact us.
Kind regards,
Rita Xu
Encyclopedia Editorial Office
[email protected]
Twitter: https://twitter.com/EncyclopediaMD1
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Encyclopedia-MDPI-102056985743398
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/encyclopedia/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnvLFYQq1NTG7ulY3h8lBYA
Encyclopedia Outstanding Contributor Awards 2022 - Open for Application
https://encyclopedia.pub/announcement/view/15
--
MDPI
Postfach, CH-4020 Basel, Switzerland
Office: St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel
Tel.: +41 61 683 77 34; Fax:  +41 61 302 89 18
https://encyclopedia.pub--Bwshen留言2023年2月23日 (四) 02:09 (UTC)回复
Hello. Although this project looks at least have chances to further develop, but I personally don't think it should be used for now. It is too early to use as Wikipedia readers could hardly distinguish it from other unreliable sources. I personally refer you to read w:Wikipedia:RSSELF. Also, a similar case is the Researchgate, which is normally not regarded as a reliable source here.--ときさき くるみ 2023年2月25日 (六) 05:55 (UTC)回复
Please think of yourself as a reviewer or editor. Please let me know whether any specific information is inaccurate.
I will provide you references. Thanks very much!--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 05:58 (UTC)回复
BTW,
"
条目应该基于来自可靠的第三方的出版物,来源应具有事实验证和准确性声誉。这意味着我们只发表具有可靠性的作者的观点,而不是解读第一手来源的维基人自己的观点。如何合适的列明来源总是依赖于情境。常识和编辑者的判断是这个过程不可或缺的一部分。下文列出一些可靠来源类型和来源可靠性问题,这不是作为一个完整的列表,仅作示例。
来源的定义
来源在维基百科中有下面三个含义:
  • 作品本身(文献,报道等)
  • 作品的作者(作者,记者等)
  • 作品的发表者(某大学出版社,某新闻社等)
三者都可以影响内容的可靠性。可靠来源可能意味着有可靠出版过程的出版物,在主题上有权威的作者,或者两者兼具。来源的可靠性应可以被常人理解。
"
Currently, I am a lead guest Editor for "Atmosphere" and an Editor for Geoscience Letters. I have reviewed more than 30 different journals. https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/shen_services.html
  • Reviewers for the following journals:
  1. Advances in Data Science and Adaptive Analysis
  2. Advances in Meteorology
  3. Animals
  4. Annales Geophysicae
  5. Atmosphere
  6. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
  7. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
  8. Atmospheric Science Letters (ASL)
  9. Chaos Solitons & Fractals (CSF)
  10. Climate Dynamics
  11. Earth Interactions
  12. Electronics
  13. Fractal and Fractional
  14. Frontiers in Earth Sciences
  15. Future Generation Computer Systems
  16. Geophysical Research Letters (GRL)
  17. Geoscience Letters
  18. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos (IJBC)
  19. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
  20. Journal of Climate
  21. Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology
  22. Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR)
  23. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing
  24. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences (JAS)
  25. Meteorological Applications
  26. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
  27. Monthly Weather Review (MWR)
  28. Nature Communication
  29. Nonlinear Dynamics
  30. Physica Scripta
  31. PLOS ONE
  32. Pure and Applied Geophysics
  33. Tellus A
  34. Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (TAO)
  35. Weather and Forecasting (WAF)
--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 06:02 (UTC)回复
No, it seems that you have misunderstand the statement here, maybe you are an authority in this area, but here, the authority refers to the authority of the publisher. For example, if Alice published an article on one journal and Bob wants to cite it on Wikipedia, then the authority means the authority of Alice, not Bob. If you are telling me your real identity, a similar case happened on English Wikipedia about ten years ago when Dr. Timothy Messer-Kruse tried to fix some errors in the article "Haymarket affair". He used a similar strategy by announcing he is an expert, but some editors refused him, which later caused criticism towards Wikipedia.--ときさき くるみ 2023年2月25日 (六) 06:12 (UTC)回复
I understand your concern. That's why I asked the following.
(1) first, please let me know if there is any inaccurate information. I will provide responses.
I additionally added two papers Shen 2019a, b; please search "bounded" or "boundedness" in both papers.
The two papers supported related discussions.
Additionally,
(2) I am qualified for the 2nd one of the following:
来源在维基百科中有下面三个含义:
  • 作品本身(文献,报道等)
  • 作品的作者(作者,记者等)
  • 作品的发表者(某大学出版社,某新闻社等)
https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/
https://bwshen.sdsu.edu/shen_publications_all.html
Thanks,
-Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 06:32 (UTC)回复
do you use Skype or facebook messenger? If so, I'd suggest discussing related issues using Skype or facebook messenger? I can host a zoom meeting as well. Please let me know. Thanks, -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 06:37 (UTC)回复
I actually have both, but what's the topic you would like to discuss here?--ときさき くるみ 2023年2月25日 (六) 06:39 (UTC)回复
my fb id is https://www.facebook.com/bowen.shen1. If you have a concern, I am happy to discuss with you via fb messenger.--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 06:44 (UTC)回复
Looks good, I am going to further review them. Also I suggest you use |quote= to indicate your words in the article. Cheers.--ときさき くるみ 2023年2月25日 (六) 06:38 (UTC)回复
I mainly use the "visual editor". Regarding your suggestions, please give me specific codes and contents. I will review them and add them properly. Thanks!--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 06:46 (UTC)回复
|quote=的方式可以参考Special:Diff/76113685,从来源标明直接支持条目内容的关键句。—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:07 (UTC)回复
for papers in pdf format, it is not challenging for users to find related discussions, e.g., searching "bounded" or "boundedness". Thanks, -Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:33 (UTC)回复
I fully agree, so it is usually not needed. I think Tokisaki Kurumi's comment is just in case we'd still like to cite Lorenz 2008 for that statement, since (as I've said) searching for "bounded" and "finite" etc yields no result in Lorenz 2008 and in this case, the editor adding it should give the page number or quote to help locating the relevant content.—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:39 (UTC)回复
(But of course we've got enough. Avoid en:WP:OVERCITE.)—— 留言2023年2月25日 (六) 12:43 (UTC)回复
I added the following from Lorenz (2008):
--
A related property of chaos is absence of true periodicity. For many systems, because the number of possible states, each differing more than a given amount from any of the others, is limited, we can be sure that if we wait long enough we shall encounter a state close to one that we have seen before, and we may think of the later state as the earlier one plus a small perturbation.
--
"recurrence" also indicates "boundedness". I appreciate your comments and suggestions which helped clarify for many readers.
Thanks,
-Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 13:17 (UTC)回复
BTW, the first figure was added by Eliot in early 2008. (Unfortunately, the last edit by Eliot was done in 2016.) I already sent Eliot the following message:
--
Hi Eliot,
   I am wondering whether the first figure (image) in the entry of Butterfly Effect (in Chinese)
was added by you. I have some comments and would like to discuss with you.
Thanks,
-Bowen
--
As mentioned, a quick fix is to replace "attractor" by "trajectory".
Thanks,
-Bowen--Bwshen留言2023年2月25日 (六) 14:44 (UTC)回复