Talk:Richard V. E. Lovelace/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copying over from Teahouse

This was posted to Teahouse, think it probably should be here

Hello ! I am glad you contacted me.

I hope, I am using correct place to answer you.

I have difficulty in finding correct places. Earlier, I noticed your flags and bells, but did not know what to do with them

and where to write answers.

I am very new in wiki. As soon as I found this place, I will answer to your questions here.

1/ Richard V. E. Lovelace is a lively and talkative person. He liked to tell stories about his early life, family and travel

at any Cornell gatherings. Everyone knows a lot about his life, because he liked to repeat these stories many times. I added only a small part of

information, which everyone at the Department knows.

Description in the section of his Early years, biography and travel are correct. However, it is YOUR choice to add them or not.

I am not professional in wiki, and quite satisfied with the current version. Some wiki pages include fun staff about professor, others are very formal.

Whatever. Does not matter for me.

2/ I had a reference to the US-Russia collaboration in Plasma Astrophysics which was removed: http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/us-russia/

The collaboration started in 1991 approximately, and continued for almost 30 years. This is the only major US-Russia collaboration in astrophysics.

The web page is stable, and has lots of information. More than 50 science papers were published. Collaboration is Cornell-based and US-supported (through multiple US grants). There is nothing in Russian and helped by Russia. Russian scientists visited US every year or worked from home.

3/ US-Kazkhstan Astrophysics collaboration is also unique. Not as long as US-Russia collaboration, but important for Kazakhstan scientists. I would add corresponding web page http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/research/projects/us-kaz/index.htm

4/ I liked the former sub-section "Discovery of the Crab Pulsar Period" and recommend to return it back. This is very important discovery. Let me explain.

When pulsars were discovered by Bell and Hewish in 1967 (he got Noble Price for this discovery), people initially talked about

Little Green Men (Aliens), then (when the second pulsar was discovered)

about pulsating white dwarfs, and only some scientists suggested the hypothesis of the rotating neutron star. Pulsars have period from 1 to a few seconds.

This could be anything. In 1968 Richard developed a special program and was able to find period of Crab pulsar, which is 33 ms = 0.033 sec, which is much smaller than

previously found periods. This discovery led to solid conclusion that pulsars are rotating neutron stars. Only neutron star may rotate 30 times per 1 second.

Neutron stars back then were only theoretically predicted.

This is a star where atoms are broken, nuclei compressed and also broken, and a star consists of neutrons packed together. Our Sun compressed to neutron star would

have a size of 10 kilometers. If you compress it 3 times more, then it would collapse to a black hole. Anyway, this discovery was super important. And forgotten.

Richard is modest person. In many wiki sources I've seen phrases like: In 1968 33 ms period of Crab Pulsar was discovered. Without mentioning the name - who discovered it. That is why, I developed a special, visible section about this discovery. BTW, a few years ago, Japanese filmmakers came from Japan and recorded Prof. Lovelace, about his discovery, then they went to Arecibo Observatory. Unfortunately, I cannot find this movie and reference.

I see that you placed everything in chronological order, and his discovery goes to the place, where he was a graduate student. I think, it is not necessary.

Jocelyn Bell also discovered first pulsar, when she was a graduate student (Nobel Price discovery). Her discovery is considered as "one of the most significant scientific achievements of the 20th century" (Wikipedia). I think, finding period of Crab Pulsar (and proof for existence of neutron stars) is also very important. It would be better and more visible to keep a special sub-section, like in my original version.

5/ Other, minor corrections of the current version of the article:

a/ Reference [1] - should be to Eldridge Lovelace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldridge_Lovelace) or to any reference inside this wiki page, not to NY Times

b/ If you keep the current sections, then I recommend in section "Research" to start from the phrase: "In 1969, Lovelace discovered period {\displaystyle P\approx 33}{\displaystyle P\approx 33} ms of the Crab Pulsar.[6] Then continue about the code. Remove this phrase from the middle of the section.

c/ There are other minor things, like dots, etc. Can be corrected later.

6/ I would like to repeat that I am independent scientist and do not have any interest from writing this wiki paper. If Japanese came from Japan with huge cameras to Prof. Lovelace, then why don't colleague from Cornell cannot write a page about prominent, but modest professor?

Richard retired this year, and became Emeritus Professor. He almost stopped working. However, the memory about discoveries should live.

Thank you very much for your help. Thank you for correcting my other errors.

Best regards

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

—valereee (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Valereee ! I am glad you contacted me.

Thank you very much for editing my contribution and for correction of my minor errors. It is fine the way it is.

I have a few comments

a/ Reference [1] is not correct. There should be reference to Eldridge Lovelace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldridge_Lovelace) or to any reference inside his wiki page, not to NY Times.

b/ If you keep the current sections, then I recommend in section "Research" to start from the phrase: "In 1969, Lovelace discovered period {\displaystyle P\approx 33}{\displaystyle P\approx 33} ms of the Crab Pulsar.[6] Then continue about the code. Remove this phrase from the middle of the section.

Thank you very much for your help.

Best regards

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marinaromanova55! I was hoping someone would respond to your full statement. To expand on what I just said in an edit summary, we have to cite a source for his being Eldridge Lovelace's son, and I haven't found any other, including in the citations for the article on his father. The article on his father is linked but that isn't itself a citation, nor can we just leave the reader to go there and look for a citation for his being his son. I'll leave the discussion of sectioning for those who know the field, but apart from moving the international collaborations, nobody else appears to have objected to the current arrangement of Career and Research. I wonder if perhaps the proof that pulsars are rotating neutron stars should be emphasized in the introduction rather than saying there that he is known for a list of things: something like: "He holds a double professorship at Cornell University, in astronomy in the College of Arts and Sciences and in applied and engineering physics in the College of Engineering. Early in his career, he discovered the period of the pulsar in the Crab Nebula, thereby helping to prove that pulsars are rotating neutron stars. He also developed a magnetic model of astrophysical jets from galaxies and a model of Rossby waves in accretion disks, and organized the US-Russia collaboration in plasma astrophysics." For the relative importance of that discovery, we need a 3rd-party assessment; any publication, whether a paper in the field by someone else or a book chapter, can be cited to support such a statement. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am working on these issues

Hello. Thank you for your explanations. I will add requested references. I already found references to newspapers showing that Richard is son of Eldridge Lovelace. Added one of them (from The Kansas City Star newspaper). There is another one from St. Louis newspaper, but probably one is sufficient. Will search for other references.

I am not sure that we should start from: "He holds a double professorship at Cornell University, in astronomy in the College of Arts and Sciences and in applied and engineering physics in the College of Engineering." It is not that important. There are many professors, but most of them did not do discovery of that scale. I think, current version is fine.

Best regards. Marinaromanova55 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Request edit on 27 January 2021

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

{{u|Valereee}}

Dear Valereee,

Please, substitute the text below (two paragraphs):

In 1968 (10 November), Lovelace discovered period $P\approx 33$ ms of the Crab Pulsar. As a graduate student working at Arecibo Observatory, Lovelace developed a Fast Fourier transform program. The special code named Gallop in Fortran was adapted to run on the Arecibo Observatory's CDC 3200 computer, which had a memory of 32,000 words of 24 bit length. The code was integer-based, using half-words of 12 bits, and was able to do the fast Fourier transform of N=16,384 signal samples. The 8192 signal power values were printed out on a folded raster scan. The signal to noise ratio increases as N increases. This was the largest value of N that could be handled by the Arecibo computer. This program helped to separate the periodic pulsar signal from the noise, and one night he discovered the period of the Crab pulsar, which is approximately 33 ms (33.09 ms).

This was the fastest pulsar found at that time. This discovery helped to cement the idea that pulsars were rotating neutron stars. Before that, many scientists believed that pulsars were pulsating white dwarfs or neutron stars.

References

With the text below. In the 1st paragraph below, I removed text describing the details of the code and numbers, relevant to this code. Instead, I described the discovery in greater detail and added many more external references. In the second paragraph, I substituted the sentence "This discovery helped to cement the idea... " with the phrase: "This discovery helped to proof the idea..." I wrote earlier, but really do not like the word "cemented". I think the word "proof" is better

In 1968 (10 November), Lovelace and his collaborators discovered period $P\approx 33$ ms of the Crab Pulsar. As a graduate student working at Arecibo Observatory, Lovelace developed a version of the Fast Fourier transform program which was adapted to run on the Arecibo Observatory's CDC 3200 computer. This program helped to separate the periodic pulsar signal from the noise, and one night he discovered the period of the Crab pulsar. A few weeks earlier, observers from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory reported about two pulsating sources near the Crab Nebula, with no evident periodicities. Lovelace and collaborators found that one of pulsars (the NP 0532) is located in the center of the Crab Nebula (with precision of 10') and found it's period with a high precision: 33.09 ms.

This was the fastest pulsar found at that time. This discovery helped to proof the idea that pulsars were rotating neutron stars. Before that, many scientists believed that pulsars were pulsating white dwarfs or neutron stars.

References

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Fixing failed ping. @Marinaromanova: This is how it's done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi,@Marinaromanova55! So, we can't use sources 1, 3, 5, 6, or 14, because those are his own work. Can you rewrite the para without using any sources that he contributed to? Sorry, I know that for academics that's a really difficult concept, but we don't use a paper in which he announces he's discovered something as support for the assertion he discovered it. Someone else has to say that about him. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

from my talk

Copied over from my talk:

Dear Valereee, sorry, I misunderstood you. I though, I have permission to do minor changes. Its OK, I will describe all changes here. Some other wiki referee answered to my long letter and noted that there should be a proof of Lovelace's discovery. He/she was not happy that I added only references to his own work. I am happy to add references to other people's work, where they refer to his papers and point out his discovery and other work. Question: how many references to add? There are hundreds of references of other people. How many to add? We already have a long list of references. Is it OK to add many more? I would like to note that his major work has been published in Nature, which is most significant science journal (with very strict Referees). Do we still need a proof from other sources? Thank you very much for your help. Marinaromanova55 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Marinaromanova55, no worries. It's fine, you're doing great for a new editor. :) Wikipedia is very difficult for academics. Most academics are comfortable using primary sources to do original research and develop theories about how ideas are connected. Here on Wikipedia, we don't do any of those things. We don't use primary sources. We don't do original research. We don't connect one idea to another.

What we do: we report on what reliable secondary sources have said.

This means that we can't use Dr. Lovelace's own work to say he did something. We have to use what other people have said about his work. Again, this is a very difficult concept for most academics to grasp, as it is so foreign to how you normally work. What we need to see is other people citing his work and, while citing it, saying things like, "Lovelace discovered X." —valereee (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Should I point to corresponding places ?

Thank you, Valereee, I start orienting in wiki a bit more. I have a question. If, say, I found a book of 200 pages, where authors tell about this discovery on page 10, the total information is a few strings (this is sufficient and understandable for astronomers). Should I also provide these stings& Or page 10? Or simply citation (let people find)?

I see that some people added external links on the bottom of their wiki page to their departmental web page or other. Should we refer to the Astronomy Department web page and to the US-Russia collaboration web page (it is 30 years collaboration and same web page) ?

Thank you !

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Marinaromanova55, it's always helpful if you put the page number on the citation. One of the reasons we try to cite so carefully is to allow readers and other editors to check those citations. Are you editing from a laptop/desktop, or from a mobile device such as a phone or tablet? (The reason I ask is that there are very helpful gadgets you can enable if you're on a laptop or desktop.) —valereee (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: including an external link to the department -- that's something that is common, but is subject to consensus. That is, we try to determine if most other editors who are editing this page say yes or no to that. I am not going to give an opinion because I want to remain "uninvolved" here, which allows me to make administrative decisions. —valereee (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I used both his Cornell departmental pages as references, which makes them superfluous as external links; otherwise yes, I would have made them external links. If he happens to have a personal website, that's the logical external link. If there's a specific webpage for the Russia–US collaboration that's still online or can be resuscitated via the Internet Archive, that would be appropriate as a ref at that point in the article, I think. The book sounds like a good reference; the ref should include the page number as well as all the info about the book, but doesn't have to include a quote. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

OK

Thank you, understood. Will add page number, otherwise too long to search.

Actually, my request on external links is not that strong. I see some reference on US-Russia Collaboration page, which is sufficient. People can find the Astronomy Department page using key words without wiki. So, whatever. Marinaromanova55 (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Please, add references

Dear Valeree,

Please, add two references. One of them to Gold, T. who proposed that pulsars are magnetized rotating neutron stars. He mentioned the discovery of 33ms period of Crab Pulsar (which is important for his theory) and referred to Lovelace discovery published in IAU Telegram (this is the main place where people report about their discovery in astronomy with very fast publication. IAU: International Astronomical Society).

Reference 1: Gold, Thomas “Rotating Neutron Stars and the Nature of Pulsars” Publication: Nature, Volume 221, Issue 5175, pp. 25-27 (1969) Pub Date: January 1969 DOI: 10.1038/221025a0 Bibcode: 1969Natur.221...25G

Reference 2 (the first announcement of discovery): Lovelace, R. V. E., Sutton, J. M., and Craft, jun., H. D. IAU Astronomical Telegram Circular No. 2113 (1968)

I will gradually work on other requested references which prove importance of contributions of Prof. Lovelace. Thank you !

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Marinaromanova55, which 'citation needed' tag or other assertion is this for? If you can copy the article sentence here for me, it will make this much easier for me! —valereee (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Places for references

Thank you, Valereee. Sorry that I did not show the places for references.

The above described Reference 1 goes after the phrase: "After this discovery, scientists concluded that pulsars were rotating neutron stars."

The above described Reference 2 goes after the phrase: "In 1968 (10 November), Lovelace discovered period {\displaystyle P\approx 33}{\displaystyle P\approx 33} ms of the Crab Pulsar.[6]" It should go before current reference [6], because it was an immediate Telegram about the discovery.

Also, please correct the current reference [9] on the book by Haensel et al. 2007. Please, add authors of the book (which I omitted by accident):

Haensel, P.; Potekhin, A. Y.; Yakovlev, D. G. and add Page 10 (where authors refer to Lovelace's discovery).

Also, please correct my technical error: reference looks ugly and different from other references. I was not able to find an error. Thank you very much for your help!

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellence in Teaching Prize - add reference or remove ?

Hello Editor, There is request for reference at this place: "He was awarded the Excellence in Teaching Prize of the engineering honor society Tau Beta Pi in 1988.[citation needed]" I suggest to cite the general web cite of the Society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Beta_Pi , or to remove this phrase from Lovelace wiki page. The problem is that they do not keep the list of awarded people. At least, I cannot find them. Thank you!

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Marina, we can leave that as citation needed, IMO. It's not a particularly controversial assertion, and some future editor may be able to provide a citation. —valereee (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Guggenheim Fellowship

Hello Editor, The second major request was to add reference here: " and a member of the Advisory board of the Guggenheim Fellowship Foundation from 1994 to 2005.[citation needed]" Unfortunately, I cannot find the list of people who served in the past. Please, either refer to general page of the foundation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Fellowship or remove this phrase from Lovelace page.

Please, add reference to web page of the Guggenheim Foundation, which shows that Lovelace has been awarded in 1989. The reference should go after the phrase: "He spent a year as a visiting scientist at the Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory in the 1970s and in 1990 was a visiting professor at the University of Texas at Austin on a Guggenheim Fellowship (Reference: https://www.gf.org/fellows/all-fellows/richard-v-e-lovelace/). I recommend to have a separate phrase about this Guggenheim Fellowship Award (which he got in 1989) which is a high-level award. Thank you! Marinaromanova55 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Request edit on 8 January 2021

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Hello. Thank you for your help. Below, I edited my old text. Added several external references and slightly modified text. It is a bit more precise now. Older version is also correct. External references are important. Thank you !

Please, substitute this paragraph:

This was the fastest pulsar found at that time. After this discovery, scientists concluded that pulsars were rotating neutron stars. Before that, many scientists believed that pulsars were pulsating white dwarfs.

With the new one:

This was the fastest pulsar found at that time. This discovery helped to cement the idea that pulsars were rotating neutron stars. .. Before that, many scientists believed that pulsars were pulsating white dwarfs or neutron stars.

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Valeree for adding my corrections. They look great. Thank you very much ! I will gradually work on adding more external references, a bunch at a time.

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Marinaromanova55, I've made that change, let me know if it's what you were suggesting. —valereee (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Request edit on 12 January 2021

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Dear Editor,

Please, substitute the phrase: In 1976, Lovelace proposed a model of jets from disks surrounding massive black holes in galaxies. The model is based on the dynamo mechanism acting in the magnetized accretion disk surrounding a black hole or other gravitating object. It has been widely accepted by the astronomical community and now is the main model explaining jets from galaxies, stars and planets.

With more precise (and somewhat more neutral) phrase which also includes external references:

In 1976 Lovelace proposed a model of jets from magnetized disks surrounding massive black holes in galaxies. The model is based on the dynamo mechanism acting in the magnetized accretion disk surrounding a black hole or other gravitating object. The idea of the magnetically-driven jets and winds has been widely accepted by the astronomical community.

Thank you! Marinaromanova55 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done —valereee (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Request edit on 24 January 2021

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

{{u|Valereee}}

Dear Valereee, Please, substitute the old text:

Lovelace proposed the Rossby waves instability in accretion disks. These waves form anti-cyclonic vortices in accretion discs, where dust particles accumulate and form planets.

with the new one (below). In the new text, I removed one reference to Lovelace and added two external references.

Lovelace proposed the Rossby waves instability in accretion disks. These waves form anti-cyclonic vortices in accretion discs, where dust particles accumulate and may form planets.

Thank you!

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Marina, let me know if I got it wrong! Also remember not to use the nowiki markup when pinging me, that makes the ping not work. You just use 2 curly brackets, the letter u, vertical slash, Valereee, close curlies to ping me. —valereee (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Request edit on 9 February 2021

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Valereee

Dear Valereee,

Please, substitute this paragraph:

In 1968 (10 November), Lovelace discovered period $P\approx 33$ ms of the Crab Pulsar. As a graduate student working at Arecibo Observatory, Lovelace developed a Fast Fourier transform program. The special code named Gallop in Fortran was adapted to run on the Arecibo Observatory's CDC 3200 computer, which had a memory of 32,000 words of 24 bit length. The code was integer-based, using half-words of 12 bits, and was able to do the fast Fourier transform of N=16,384 signal samples. The 8192 signal power values were printed out on a folded raster scan. The signal to noise ratio increases as N increases. This was the largest value of N that could be handled by the Arecibo computer. This program helped to separate the periodic pulsar signal from the noise, and one night he discovered the period of the Crab pulsar, which is approximately 33 ms (33.09 ms).

With a new one, where I found better sources and removed numbers associated with the numerical code (there are no references to these numbers, and overall - it is better without them). Instead, I added a bit of history associated with work of other people.

In 1968 (10 November), Lovelace and his collaborators discovered period $P\approx 33$ ms of the Crab Pulsar. As a graduate student working at Arecibo Observatory, Lovelace developed a version of the Fast Fourier transform program which was adapted to run on the Arecibo Observatory's CDC 3200 computer. This program helped to separate the periodic pulsar signal from the noise, and one night he discovered the period of the Crab pulsar. A few weeks earlier, observers from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory reported about two pulsating sources near the Crab Nebula, with no evident periodicities. Lovelace and collaborators found that one of pulsars (the NP 0532) is located in the center of the Crab Nebula and found it's period with a high precision: 33.09 ms.

Please, substitute this paragraph:

This was the fastest pulsar found at that time. This discovery helped to cement the idea that pulsars were rotating neutron stars. Before that, many scientists believed that pulsars were pulsating white dwarfs or neutron stars.

With the new one below. In the old text, I do not like the phrase: "helped to cement the idea". I substituted with the phrase: "helped to proof the idea". Also, I removed reference to Lovelace's work.

This was the fastest pulsar found at that time. This discovery helped to proof the idea that pulsars were rotating neutron stars. Before that, many scientists believed that pulsars were pulsating white dwarfs or neutron stars.

In addition, please substitute this phrase:

and in 2010 became an editorial board member of Journal of Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology.

with a new one, where I added requested reference:

and in 2010 became an editorial board member of "Journal of Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology".

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Marinaromanova55! You got the ping almost right -- I've got three e's in my username, and you put in only two! It has to be perfect, because of course computers are stupid. But you've definitely got the idea now!

I'll take a look at this tomorrow morning, when I'm fresh. —valereee (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Valereee that you noticed my message and sorry for the mistake !!! Please, let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Marinaromanova55 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(responding to a question at article talk: Dear Valereee, Thank you very much for help with editing the Lovelace wiki page. However, I have concerns in respect of my recent modifications and overall policy of wiki in respect of scientists. I realize that this discussion takes more of your time. However, I would like to create a good paper about Lovelace, which reflects the reality. Briefly, I am checking web cites of different scientists and see lots of references to their own work. In some cases, there are a few, most significant references, in other cases many more references (usually, when a scientist proposed many interesting things). In paper on Albert Einstein, there are many references to his own work. In brief. I think we should return back an important reference to the IAU telegram (which in Astronomy is the main proof of discovery) and the paper in Nature which describes the details of discovery. I removed them for now. Added some external references. However, brief external references usually do not describe the subject well enough and do not substitute the main major work. It is difficult for me to look at hundreds of pages of wiki policies. This is something for young people. However, I am confused with the result - that most of wiki pages of scientists do have references to their own work. May be the rules are not strict, but in the form of recommendation ? I agree that it does not look good when there are only references to the scientist's own work. May be, there should be a mixture of own work and external references. Overall, initially, I removed all important references from recent proposed modifications, but will add couple back today, before your morning tomorrow. Otherwise, it does not look good. Sorry for long writing. Thanks again!)

I'm not an expert on biographies of academics, but generally articles shouldn't use a person's own work to support assertions about the importance of the work, impact of that work, that the person was the first to do something, that they created or invented or discovered it. It can say things like "X described Y in 1963 in a paper read at Z conference" or whatever. Things that are purely factual, broadly accepted, and that no one anywhere would argue with. I'm afraid you'll have to get input from someone more familiar with academics if you want to suggest inclusion of his own work to support anything other than that, especially when working with a COI. If you want to make an assertion that no one except Lovelace is making then probably you shouldn't. If literally no one in the world is saying it, we shouldn't be using his own words to say it. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee

Dear Valereee,

Thank you so much for your explanation. I understand it too. OK, let's proceed in the style which you suggested.

Please, add corrections which I suggested last time (on February 9). They correspond to your requests.Marinaromanova55 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

navigation break for first request

So we have this request:

In 1968 (10 November), Lovelace and his collaborators discovered period $P\approx 33$ ms of the Crab Pulsar. As a graduate student working at Arecibo Observatory, Lovelace developed a version of the Fast Fourier transform program which was adapted to run on the Arecibo Observatory's CDC 3200 computer. This program helped to separate the periodic pulsar signal from the noise, and one night he discovered the period of the Crab pulsar. A few weeks earlier, observers from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory reported about two pulsating sources near the Crab Nebula, with no evident periodicities. Lovelace and collaborators found that one of pulsars (the NP 0532) is located in the center of the Crab Nebula and found it's period with a high precision: 33.09 ms.

 Done I think this looks good, except for the website expertise finder, which seems to be a place you go and sign yourself up as an expert, so we can't use that. There are two sources on that sentence. Does the Lovell source support the entire sentence? —valereee (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

second request

Then we have this request:

This was the fastest pulsar found at that time. This discovery helped to proof the idea that pulsars were rotating neutron stars. Before that, many scientists believed that pulsars were pulsating white dwarfs or neutron stars.

 Done Okay, that'll work too. Do you mean 'prove' rather than 'proof'? —valereee (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

third request

and in 2010 became an editorial board member of "Journal of Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology".

 Done That looks fine also. —valereee (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Request edit on 11 February 2021

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Valereee

Dear Valereee,

Please, substitute this paragraph :

In 1968 (10 November), Lovelace and his collaborators discovered period $P\approx 33$ ms of the Crab Pulsar. As a graduate student working at Arecibo Observatory, Lovelace developed a version of the Fast Fourier transform program which was adapted to run on the Arecibo Observatory's CDC 3200 computer. This program helped to separate the periodic pulsar signal from the noise, and one night he discovered the period of the Crab pulsar. A few weeks earlier, observers from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory reported about two pulsating sources near the Crab Nebula, with no evident periodicities. Lovelace and collaborators found that one of pulsars (the NP 0532) is located in the center of the Crab Nebula and found it's period with a high precision: 33.09 ms.

With the new one (below). In the new version, I moved "(10 November)" to later phrase, because Lovell (1973) book does not have this date (your are right!).

In 1968, Lovelace and his collaborators discovered period $P\approx 33$ ms of the Crab Pulsar. As a graduate student working at Arecibo Observatory, Lovelace developed a version of the Fast Fourier transform program which was adapted to run on the Arecibo Observatory's CDC 3200 computer. This program helped to separate the periodic pulsar signal from the noise, and one night (November 10) he discovered the period of the Crab pulsar. A few weeks earlier, observers from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory reported about two pulsating sources near the Crab Nebula, with no evident periodicities. Lovelace and collaborators found that one of pulsars (the NP 0532) is located in the center of the Crab Nebula and found it's period with a high precision: 33.09 ms.

Please, substitute this paragraph:

He became a fellow of the American Physical Society in 2000, was divisional associate editor for Physical Review Letters for Plasma Physics from 1997 to 2000, in 2003 became associate editor of Physics of Plasmas, and in 2010 became an editorial board member of Journal of Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology. He was a member of the James Clerk Maxwell Prize for Plasma Physics committee of the American Physical Society in 2009-2011 and a member of the Advisory board of the Guggenheim Fellowship Foundation from 1994 to 2005.

With the new one (beloow). In the new version, I removed [[ ]] brackets around Journal of Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology. Also, I removed phrases, starting from "He was a member..." to the end of the paragraph. I cannot find references, they do not keep information about former members. I propose to delete this info, because I do not like marks (citation is needed). I would like to finish this contribution without any marks of this kind. It is better to have a shorter version, but complete.

He became a fellow of the American Physical Society in 2000, was divisional associate editor for Physical Review Letters for Plasma Physics from 1997 to 2000, in 2003 became associate editor of Physics of Plasmas, and in 2010 became an editorial board member of Journal of Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology.

PS. Valereee. If you notice some errors in English then correct, please. Thank you! Marinaromanova55 (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Marinaromanova55, the indentation is for when you're replying to someone else, not for each new paragraph that you write -- all the paragraphs you write in a single post should be indented equally. When I reply to you, I add a colon -- in this case, a single colon. When you reply to this post, you'll use two colons on each para. I've corrected the indent above so you can see that all paras have the same number (0) of colons. My paras all have one colon.

I removed the day/month from the first paragraph.

I don't want to remove the brackets; redlinks are useful because they tell other editors that there's an article missing that may be notable. I also don't want to remove the citation needed tags, as the information is useful content for people interested in the article subject, and later editors may be able to find it somewhere. If we remove the information, future editors may not realize there's information missing. A citation needed tag isn't the same as a tag. It's not an indication that the tagger doesn't believe the information is true. It's just a request for help in sourcing the info, and Wikipedia would rather have complete information if we can rather than untagged but incomplete information. —valereee (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

References