User talk:Ldm1954/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were: 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 User:Ldm1954/sandbox 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ldm1954! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. A few specifics would be useful; I will try the Teahouse. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added specifics to your comment on my talk page and to the draft itself. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I note you have edited Laurence D. Marks and are now creating an article which appears to be a biography of a relative. You need to read WP:COI and declare any conflicts .... I would recommend doing so on your user page and on the article(s) where it applies. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Maisie Myra Marks has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Maisie Myra Marks. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Edits

Someone thought it appropriate to hack the page, removing vast amounts of background data and, in the process, make a very large number of errors of fact. This was highly inappropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Ldm1954/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Ldm1954/sandbox. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I see validity in some of the comments, for instance the "Unfortunately" in "Unfortunately, towards the end of her first year". However, I do not agree there is anything wrong with "a few months shy of her 17th birthday". Just because it is Encyclopedic does not mean it should be boring. I have seen many people in science argue that everything should be "boring". If you go back and read the giants (Einstein, Gibbs etc) you will see that they did not.

In my opinion "boring" is an excuse for bad writing.

'Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress', attributed to Mahatma Gandhi Ldm1954 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:INFORMAL “Just present the sourced information without embellishment, agenda, fanfare, cleverness, or conversational tone.” Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, as will the majority of academics in all disciplines. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You are free to disagree, but this is Wikipedia and the guidelines here are different to academia. Theroadislong (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Low-energy electron diffraction into Electron diffraction. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Earlier S. Philbrick stated:

"In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved."

The sections where there has been some copying already has the note that he suggested, although I have changed some of the text. In all cases the main page is already cited. I will update so it is clearer, the page is not finished. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The guideline states that you need to provide the attribution in the edit summary when you copy the content please. If you forget to do so, it can be done in a subsequent edit summary. — Diannaa (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There is now a specific mention in the history about the sections taken from CBED, PED, 4D-STEM, LEED and RHEED. I have also added to the talk on all of these. I believe this is what you were asking for. Please let me know if you want something even more specific.

Note: in all cases I have made some edits for clarity within the Electron diffraction page. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You are on the right track now. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Enough as is? Ldm1954 (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by enough? Do you want a critique of the wording, or are you wondering if all the articles you copied from have now got their required attribution? — Diannaa (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me be specific. Is the existing wording a sufficient attribution as is? I have no issue with attributing, I just want to verify that I can focus on other issues in the article and consider this one settled. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the wording is adequate. — Diannaa (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Diff/Dynamical

Hello, Ldm1954

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Sm8900, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Diff/Dynamical, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Sm8900}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Sm8900 (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Diff/Dynamical moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Diff/Dynamical, is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, click the Submit the draft for review! button atop the article. Silikonz💬 15:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It was a mistake, it was supposed to be a subsection on my homepage while I constructed it. The draft should be deleted. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wipedia

You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. It appears to be RHEED. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I hope you will do so.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The link to the page is there, as it now is for others -- I was half way through major edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maisie Myra Marks (February 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Velella was:  The comment the reviewer left 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:Maisie Myra Marks 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.

 Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

References 1,5,6,8,9,10,15,16,17,24,29 are Trade Newspapers and Articles from independent sources where she is mentioned, in many cases extensively. Similarly 11 & 18 are books (they are slightly different editions with different material). There is also extensive material in the archives, which includes material on what she did and the significance of her charitable work -- not just the MBE.

Back in the relevant period, 1957-1988 there was essentially no internet, no blogs, the number of newspapers etc was significantly smaller. Hence the number of articles etc is significant. Many sources from that era have not been digitized, or are on microfiche.

If you do a simple Google search of course you will not find much; you will not find much about other notable people of that and earlier eras. You have to do proper research of the sources, which are given in the draft. This cannot be done in a five minute read which the speed of your review indicates took place.

Some things you could (have to) do are: a) Register for a trial subscription at NewspaperArchive.com, then search. b) Go to a copyright library such as the British Library. Unfortunately many sources are not part of their lending collection, but you can search contents; you may have to physically go to the reading room. c) Go to the History of Advertising Trust. Since they are a charity they may charge you £38/hour for a search. d) If you are affiliated with a major university, get assistance from a librarian. That is their job, and they welcome it.

The quote on the Adwomen is primary, so has no reference.

Refs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15-17, 22, 24, 29, 30 are secondary sources

Refs 11, 18 are tertiary sources.

Refs 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20 are archived collections of primary and secondary material, similar to a library.

Refs 22, 23, 31-41 are evidence. Evidence is stronger than any source, as it is not open to question. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks

If it is true, that we learn humility through accepting humiliations cheerfully (Mother Theresa), then I would like to thank you for allowing me to improve my humility.

Cheerfully yours Klingm01 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If I make a complaint that you have confirmational bias and that you have a COI, then it is highly inappropriate for you to respond to the complaint. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Belated Welcome

Hi there Ldm1954 and welcome to Wikipedia! I saw your post at Talk:X-ray crystallography and figured I'd drop by to say hello and check in. Wikipedia is a large operation that has necessarily developed a labyrinthine set of rules, guidelines, and norms to keep things running relatively smoothly (or at least as smoothly as one can expect for a 6.5-million-article openly editable encyclopedia). It can be frustrating to navigate when you're starting out, and it can remain frustrating at times even when you've been here for years. If you have questions, comments, or complaints, as you get started feel free to let me know and I can do my best to help out. Unfortunately, I was trained as a lowly microbiologist, so I'm several spatial orders of magnitude away from the kinds of topics that likely interest you. But I've been a regular editor here for several years now, so I should be able to help with the basic struggles of the academic to Wikipedia transition, or at least point you in the right direction. I hope all is well over there. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ernst G. Bauer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks II.: A bit of rigor

Relativistic wavelengths for various accelerating voltages

$V$ [kV]	$\lambda$ [pm]
0.1	122.633
0.5	54.832
1	38.763
10	12.204
20	8.588
50	5.355
100	3.701
200	2.508
300	1.969
400	1.644
800	1.027
1000	0.872
2000	0.504
3000	0.357

Thank you for your effort. Before you further edit Electron diffraction, please read its talk page and justify your claims that the relativistic wavelength stated there is wrong. It will mark a crucial moment for the field revealing that a row of famous names like Carter, Williams, Kirkland, Karlík, De Graef and other established authors have been misleading the whole community for decades. Why? Because they all keep publishing exactly the same numbers and formulas which you keep removing for being incorrect. --88.103.135.201 (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have misunderstood. The full formulation for the energy and mass is standard and can be found in main sources such as HHPNW & JMC. Scientific rigor says cite the key early papers/books, not later ones. For instance from my class notes (you will find it elsewhere as well):

"The total energy is

Et2 = c2p2 +mo2c4

where mo is the rest mass of the electron, c the speed of light and Et is the sum of the rest energy and the kinetic energy of the electron, i.e.

Et = eE + moc2

The relativistically corrected mass to use is

m = mo + eE/2c2

(this is not the true mass of the electron, which is m0+eE/c2, but instead a value used to eliminate the relativistic terms)."

There is no real reason to go into this in the page, or the original Archie Howie explanation of how to reduce the Klein-Gordon/Dirac to the Schroedinger that is normally used in multislice/Bloch waves. (I intend to add selected refs)

For reference Marc's theory is strong, Earle's is good on multislice although I prefer the original work of Mike O'Keefe. I learnt a lot of my multislice theory from Mike O'Keefe over tea breaks back when my hair was black. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear professor Marks, I can't see the relation between your remarks of multislice theory and proof of your claims that the relativistic wavelength was incorrect. If you drift away from the topic, you will not erase the truth from textbooks of renowned authors like Kirkland, Egerton, Carter&Williams or De Graef.

As for your argument, that "[s]cientific rigor says cite the key early papers/books, not later ones", I do agree that the key early papers are important, but I do oppose the concept of not citing the later ones. Especially if the later publications are more illustrative and understandable, and especially in encyclopedia.

Please do realize, this is not a textbook, this is encyclopedia. Wikipedia should be understandable for a broader audience with expectable amount of effort, time and expertise. Of course, advanced topics can be developed in a dedicated articles, but there is no need to bury the reader under an avalanche of advanced physics in a relatively general article like Electron diffraction. This article should be definitely understandable for non-expert readers.

Klingm01 (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Klingm01 please read the paper by Fujiwara cited in the text, and/or the one by Howie. The critical role of the effective mass is in the section on "Geometry of electrons diffraction" on the interaction:

$2\pi m^{*}/h^{2}k=2\pi m^{*}\lambda /h^{2}=\pi /{hc}{\sqrt {2m_{0}c^{2}/E+1}}$.

If it is omitted then the interaction with solids is grossly underestimated. The relativistic wavelength you had was not "wrong", it is more that you omitted the key terms so it was not representative.

An encyclopedia must be correct.

Many thanks III.: Getting too far

Dear professor,

It is getting a bit difficult to accept your activity cheerfully. In order to prevent further escalation, please let me clarify the situation in a bit extensive way.

1. Your behaviour on Wikipedia is generally very combative against users opposing your opinion.
2. We have been in a dispute and editorial conflict for several days.
3. You were not ready to address my editorial points, instead you had repetitive derogatory remarks on my account.
4. You present yourself as a figure of a great seniority and connections.
5. I have never disclosed my identity nor the identity of my colleagues or bosses to you or anywhere on Wikipedia.

In this context, your remarks that you not only know my identity, but that you also are or can get in contact with my boss, have a clear taste of a demonstration of power. As those remarks were pronounced by a rhetorically skilled person clearly capable to foresee consequences, it is difficult to interpret them as something else then a threat aimed to remove an obstacle from your way.

Please realize that any suggestions that you suddenly changed your stance only wanting me to friendly deliver your greetings to my boss (as you tried to suggest) are in so apparent inconsistence with the rest of your activity, that they rather resemble a smoke curtain than any form of a plain explanation. In this situation, any such downplay have a rather deteriorative effect.

In order to prevent further escalation

1. Do not try to directly or indirectly interfere with me, my colleagues, bosses or any persons related to me.
2. Do not try to threaten anyone else on Wikipedia.
3. Do not publicly disclose further personal information without consent of data subjects.

Any further threat from your side or any suggestion that you have carried out, are carrying out or are going to carry out your threat will force me to take necessary steps.

Please realize that your aforementioned expressions combined with generally offensive character of your activity on Wikipedia leaves too few room to absorb any potential misunderstanding.

I am sorry if you didn't mean to threaten anyone, but having no idea of your real intentions, I am only left with your replies which too often sound offensive. May be this is the reason why I only met kindness on Wikipedia, regardless of the fails I've made. It is the kindness and willingness which keeps the things on the safe side. Thank you for this finding. Klingm01 (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

To repeat what I said before, "say hello" means that and nothing more, no threat, nothing.

While I appreciate that you were trying to be generally helpful, unfortunately the prior page had numerous, major scientific errors and major omissions. (Grammar was also in need of work.) The relativistic wavelength and it's general role was the smallest one, and in any case it is not a major part of ED.

May I suggest a constructive approach. There is a major need for a short section on the Ewald sphere and excitation errors. Indeed, this could be its own page. Would you like to write that? It should include HOLZ and the Laue circle, at least a mention. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear professor Marks, thank you for your kind suggestion. I hope that Ewald sphere should be detailed in it's dedicated article (see my previous reply about burying the reader under an avalanche) and I do not feel to be the right person to draft such article.

As for Electron diffraction, please note the growing number of users opposing your practices. They are not your enemies neither obstacles on your way. The article won't get improved if you ignore or offend them. You will not gain respect by asking others to accept their errors when not being able to accept your errors. You will not gain respect by asking others to apologize when you are not able to apologize. Without a doubt, you pose a great expertise, but please do listen to others - they can help you to improve the article.

Klingm01 (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a living organism

Dear prof. Marks, thank you for your contributions to the Electron diffraction article, but please do realize that Wikipedia is not a printed textbook. Unlike a printed textbook, content of Wikipedia keeps evolving and your contributions must not prevent other users form editing them.

For instance, if anyone wants to add a new image between the first and second one (Figure 1 and Figure 2 as you call them), they will be forced to fix all the consequent figure numbers and references. This means almost 60 corrections through the whole article and it makes the images virtually uneditable.

Please also do adhere to established rules and conventions, such as that the bold text is not used to emphasize "Figure 19".

Thank you.

Klingm01 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Brookhaven Instruments

Hello Ldm1954. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Brookhaven Instruments, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. BangJan1999 16:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, to contest it fully, you will need to repair the page so it is a proper Wikipedia page with cites. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

New message from Aaron Liu

Hello, Ldm1954. You have new messages at Talk:Triboelectric effect.
Message added 13:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron Liu (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

New message from Aaron Liu

Hello, Ldm1954. You have new messages at Talk:Triboelectric effect.
Message added 23:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron Liu (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Contact electrification for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Contact electrification, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contact electrification until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As has been known

I didn't add the clarify to expand it with additional information, I genuinely do not understand the sentence. Does it mean that the inconsistencies have been known for some time? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Also that probably isn't a minor edit. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly the meaning, the sources cited are from 1953-2007 and there are others even earlier such as the work of Jamieson in 1908. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I just changed "as has been" to "which have". Thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The equivalent is "which has", what you wrote is incorrect grammar. The initial is better, but I don't care. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"results such as ... contradictory ones" is plural, so it should be "have", not "has". Aaron Liu (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, "it" which is the subject, not the results. Please stop trying to correct grammar as you are not a native speaker. If you do not restore I will after dinner. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

If "it" is the subject which is referring to, then you're implying that "the difference in the work function (also sometimes called the electron affinity) between the two materials" has been known for quite some time, not the inconsistencies. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, such pronouns usually refer to the object of the sentence, not the subject. I just checked and grammarly supports my change. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I only see you mentioning things about native speakers. I have no idea why you brought up the entire parts of speech thing or what it's targeted on. I may not be a true native speaker but I am very near that as I am bilingual. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Stop. The "has" refers to "it" which is singular. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I just put this in the language reference desk. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Electron diffraction

I see you have remove the Electron microscopy template stating that "Electron diffraction is not a subcategory of electron microscopy" where in fact it is, for example EBSD is based on that FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Gas, LEED, RHEED are not part of electron microscopy Ldm1954 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning up to see what is here

@Ldm1954 I would like to delete the strikeouts.

The outline contains Concepts, Observations, History. Which order?

• (Lead) History, Concepts, Observations?
• (Lead) Observations, History, Concepts?

The Concepts section is a bit of a smashup of things I can definitely source. It's not what I would have written off the top of my head, but sources for more than trivial points of view on duality are not so easy to find. I suppose we could have gone for trivial but I think that would encourage future additions from pop-sci. Anyway by cleaning up we can get some feed back started.

Something about crystal diffraction (which I thought you might have in mind) and about quantum eraser is all I have on my to-add list. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that I have not been contributing much. I am OK with deleting the strikeouts.

For the format I would go with

Lead

History

Background (what we currently have) with a few references. I like that section

Photons as particles (historical, short, before 1930)

Electrons as waves (historical, short, before 1930)

More recent validations

Alternate views (as encyclopedic we perhaps need this), This is the Interpretations part

I do not know what to do with the "Concept". Part of me says to ignore it, and just state they are waves+particles. Otherwise everything will get twisted. At least as a start... Ldm1954 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I re-worked the Concepts to try to nail down the idea that it isn't about "they are waves+particles". I know this is the attitude of most physicists towards the entire deal, but this is mostly because it doesn't matter to them. But in its field, duality is not considered an interpretation, it's not about "what they are"; its more about what you can't observe. See if I'm any more convincing in my new draft.

I reordered but I'm not too happy with the result. I would prefer that a reader get something other than history of the bat. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

See how I merged the Concepts into the Lead. I think we have to hit it there. It is the abstract, and many people won't read beyond it. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok the remaining material is quantum eraser stuff. (Afshar should be under that).

Splitting the history by experiment type has issues of not being chronological. Chronological order is dull, In 1924, blah, blah in 1925, 1926, ... I don't have a solution other than cutting back on the total.

History still needs work. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The first few paragraphs of the current history IMHO nicely set the stage. I agree about not doing Blah did this, Blah did that. I would just focus on the two key results which I think are the initial light quantization and electron diffraction.

Then I would suggest a new section, "Probability interpretation". Nowhere does the page say that <..> really means a statistical average. The double slit experiment is a very nice demo of that. (Anyone who does TEM has seem others, but there are not nice videos of them.) There may be other things to do in order to hit this, which I suspect is critical.

After that, let's see what is left and reconsider. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I cut the history down, copied the detailed interferometry paragraphs to Atom interferometry. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Leading with single-electron double slit example.

I reordered the draft to make the first section (after the lead) a Concept section with just the single-electron double slit. So not history or details or QM, but just the data and enough explanation (which is still TBD) to get a grasp of what the images show. Just enough for the reader to conclude the data shows "wave interference" and "particles on screen". Some imagination still needed but worth considering. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think a statistics section/explanation is needed. I drafted something. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm keen on the mixture of observations and interpretations in this version. For example "There is an equal probability of the electrons passing through either of the two slits." Nothing in the experiment, or for that matter any experiment, provides evidence for this statement. My concern is both one of presentation and one of physics. As presentation, the mix positions the article as an interpretation rather than staying with the duality concept. As physics, I think this leads us off towards paradoxes unnecessarily. One can consider the statement as a shorthand for some kinds of calculations, but it is clearly expressed as a trajectory. Everyone can have their own ideas about trajectories because we can't and won't ever know.

I would prefer to expand this section with observations like water-wave interference, statistical-samples adding up to a smooth curve, electron counts adding up to electrical current. More "see what wave particle duality looks like", rather than "here is a model that explains what you see".

We could have a separate section on interpretation, but even then I would encourage a minimalist model, just probability wave amplitudes and quantum transitions. Things flying about are trouble. To me that is what 90 years of Bohr being right boil down to. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree. The wavefunction on the other side of the slits is two step functions. If you moved your detector adjacent to the two slits, that is exactly what you would (statistically) detect. The electrons do move, non-zero current flow/probability flux so there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed that is what you would get with the operator.

Ray diagrams are mappings of the probability flux, which is effectively the group velocity. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we should use that example? Move the detector up to the slits and measure equal current, in positions bounded by the slits: particle properties. But you no longer see the interference: complementarity. In a way, this is a crude first step towards the which-way experiments.

All of the evidence from single particle interference shows self-interference. So we could say: "There is 100% probability of each electron passing through both slits." I guess this will raise more questions than it answers in the context we have for this article.

To me that is question: what context do need to build to explain wave-particle duality. Wave behavior; particle behavior; the trade-off in the observations. Probability certainly comes in the appearance of the particles in the example. But the explanation of the duality concept does not hinge on the explanation of the probability (which anyway is as much a observation as an explanation). Johnjbarton (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

We can use that. I confess that I don't like the name "single particle. Also:

We need to mention that it is the same for photons, atoms etc

We have to include coherence, as without that it is not true. I will draft something this morning.

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If you get a chance, take a look at Anton Zeilinger "Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics." Reviews of Modern Physics 71.2 (1999): S288. It's about entanglement experiments of course, but the entire first half is quantum complementarity. His views seem pretty much identical to Bohr's. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. However, coherence must be in there -- I added something. Any electron microscopist will tell you that the two slit experiment only works with highly coherence illumination; oddly WP does not seem to have a good coherent electron source page. If you look at Zeilinger's Fig 1. the background indicates only partial coherency, not that surprising.

One has the same thing with SEM images because, due to inelastic scattering, almost all coherence is lost so they look like normal light-bulb images. (If you illuminate a surface with a laser, it will look different, full of interference fringes.)

I think we are making progress, but not there yet. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I think these interference experiments are quite demanding along all axes, including geometry, stability, etc. I guess the electron microscopist, being a master of most aspects already, might single out coherence for importance as that is the aspect they don't already control. For example, the molecular experiments struggle with the narrow angular spread of the diffraction, but the electron microscope can use lenses. So coherence is vital to see the interference but would a sentence suffice in this article, with more detail in double-slit experiment or coherence (physics)? Johnjbarton (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not the point. If you lose coherence then the intensity becomes the sum of that from the two independent slits. All the wave aspects go away. The wave-particle duality only exists when there is close to full coherence.
Ldm1954 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding a bit more, in Zeilinger's Fig 1 the intensity is a sum of the independent (classical) intensity of the slits, and a coherent interference. Off the cuff it is about 2/3 coherent. There are stacks of examples of incoherent (particle) versus coherent (wave) scattering from everything from quarks upwards. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Somewhere along the line I have got confused about where I was answering what! Anyway, while waiting to see Barbie (3👍) I think I was a little short on our coherence discussion. Perhaps good would be to add that this is also the density matrix approach. I remain of the belief that we need to describe wave-particle duality of many 🐈‍⬛, not just one 🐈‍⬛. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Change again?

I still think that a short history goes after the lead. Then Concept (which I changed to Foundation, but this could change). I added the photoelectron to that as I think we need to include photons as particles there. After that I am not sure how relevant the other experiments are, beyond a list. KISS.
Then end with the alternate views, short and sharp -- but to be unbiased they should be there. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

De-escalation of graphics

I am adding this here for Johnbarton, Jähmefyysikko and Quondum. If you look at https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Thierry_Dugnolle you will see that he has unusual opinions on quantum mechanics which are IMHO fringe. I think we should find some way to deescalate this, particularly as the whole page is being revised (currently in a Sandbox). Thoughts welcome. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I am at risk of repeating myself by engaging on this topic, and will likely remain remote. In particular, TD does not appear to interact in a way that is compatible with my rather limited patience. I'll throw in a tidbit that has some bearing if anyone is interested: from Matter wave#Phase velocity, we have that $\mathbf {v} _{\mathrm {p} }\cdot \mathbf {v} _{\mathrm {g} }=c^{2}$. This would seem to imply that $|\mathbf {v} _{\mathrm {g} }|\leq c\leq |\mathbf {v} _{\mathrm {p} }|$. —Quondum 15:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you about the interactions. The question is deescalation? Ldm1954 (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hah, I'm feeling patient today ;-).

His graphics are awesome. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

On de-escalation, I can remove myself from the fray. The rest of you don't seem to have been as reactive as I have. —Quondum 17:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tornadoes of 2022 on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Copenhagen interpretation into Double-slit experiment. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I copied it with some editing -- then someone deleted it as part of a content dispute before I could do anything. Since it is not currently used, I cannot acknowledge it properly.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I already did so. — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Triboelectric effect

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Triboelectric effect you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Your rejection on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dimitris_Zissis

Hi you suggested to reject the submission on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dimitris_Zissis because it "they do not show significant coverage". The article though meets the criteria 1,8 and 7 for academics notability posted here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). Should the type of article be different to be considered under this criteria? 62.1.150.73 (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Acupuncture on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Maisie Myra Marks

Hello, Ldm1954. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Maisie Myra Marks, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Electron diffraction

The article Electron diffraction you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Electron diffraction for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Withania somnifera on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Influences (influenced) in InfoBoxes

Unfortunately I only learned of this discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_scientist#Influences%2Finfluenced) today, when the subject of an article that I had edited (but not created) wrote to me to ask why the person who had influenced him the most was no longer there. (I had already noticed some oddities of missing influences (influenced) items in other articles, but paid little attention to it.) Now I find that a proposal was made on 13th September, offering no reasons other than someone's opinion. Later the existence of "abuses" was raised, unsupported by any examples or evidence. Unfortunately you were the only one to oppose the change, everyone else going along like sheep. Then, a mere 12 days after the proposal was made it was implemented. If I understand correctly the change didn't just tell the system to ignore these entries, but went much further, actually deleting them from the source files. This was certainly the case for the article to which my attention was originally drawn. This seems one of the grossest examples of abuse of power that I've seen in a long time. If you agree, do you think anything can now be done about it? Athel cb (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

From the numbers at Template_talk:Infobox_scientist, I was heavily outvoted, I think the boat has sailed unless you can find 20 others who agree with you (I do). Ldm1954 (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

But please be mindful of WP:INAPPNOTE. One should not search for those 20. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Notability

Notability is currently not part of the GA criteria. It's been discussed before, but the consensus has been against inclusion.[1] The current process is that if an article nominated for GA seems not sufficiently notable, it can be brought to Articles for Deletion. The discussion there could either result in the article being deleted (and making a review unnecessary), the discovery of new sources that cause the article to fail criteria 3 (broad in its coverage), or the article being kept.

I'm posting here, rather than on the recently-reviewed article to make clear that this is meant as guidance going forward. I don't have any plans to dispute or contest the review, and I'm comfortable with the improvements made to the article since 2019. Good luck with your future reviews, and you can feel free to inquire at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations if you ever have uncertainties about the process or a specific review. It is somewhat messy. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Triboelectric effect

The article Triboelectric effect you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Triboelectric effect for comments about the article, and Talk:Triboelectric effect/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hrishikesh D. Vinod

Dear Ldm1954,

Thank you for reading my draft for Hrishikesh D. Vinod, and providing important comments. I have now substantially revised the text by enhancing the quality of the references, improving their placing, as well as adding new, high quality external links (and removing one low quality reference). Finally, yes, he is indeed notable and yes, he is also very old. Please let me know if there are further requirements for publishing this. -- Best regards, The Ice Comet (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have not come close to demonstrating notability, please read carefully WP:NACADEMIC and the general guides:

His h-index is low

Top 5% of Economists is not that high

Citing his own page is not appropriate, you need an independent source

Marquis Who's who is not notable

You need to find significant, independent sources that demonstrate notability, for instance major society awards, being Dean in a university or similar. Unfortunately from a quick Google search I cannot see anything that demonstrates notability, so I think you are stuck. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for this ILL mess

I think that you and I are awfully bored about this {{ill}} and H:FOREIGNLINK situation, it was not me that revived it but I had to explain myself again. However even if we seem to agree in that there are alternatives to {{ill}}, I think that something has to be done about it, and I think you might not agree. Before your response I have restarted the conversation at Help talk:Interlanguage links. First option: it gets momentum and something goes forward, second option: it gets too complicated (or nobody cares) and in that case I will drop this debate. ReyHahn (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed about the boredom. I will watch the page to see if it goes anywhere. Good luck! Ldm1954 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Alexei A. Kornyshev draft

Dear Ldm1954,

Thank you for your comments on this draft. I edited it, added Google Scholar account reference, added editorial board position references, more award references, and multi-editor books references. The publications are already cited as reference to DOI numbers. I hope all of this is enough, and will be happy if you could approve the draft, alternatively, if I should cite and reference any other things in text, please let me know and I'll happily do it. All the best. Ehudhaim (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Currently there is only one source to verify all of his career. Another point is that the article claims > 300 publications, without verification (Google scholar page link -- you have it later). Maybe you should add to https://academictree.org/physics/tree.php?pid=149686.

You are going in the right direction, but if I reviewed it again now it would have to be another reject. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yoram Shiftan's draft

Thanks for the review! References 1, 4, 5, 8, 15, 20 are now working. Ref 5 and duplicate refs 8 & 15 were fixed. Adig-pt (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, they are not. cee.technion.ac.il is not accessible from the US, perhaps because of current issues. Please ensure that you check the pages from outside the university, as there might be a firewall (just guessing). And check the others. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You are probably right. I am trying to check with the relevant people in the Technion, and will update when the issue is resolved. 15:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Adig-pt (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, the IT team at the faculty confirms that the Technions’ servers are not accessible from outside Israel, and this will probably last until the war is over. Is there another way to show you the references from the Technion? Perhaps via Zoom? Adig-pt (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not an issue of showing me, I believe you. It is an issue of demonstrating to others who will be less tolerant. I know there are sites which store duplicates of web sites. Maybe you can use one of those (search for them). Otherwise I am not sure what to do, I will think. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is what I suggest. First, go to archive.org and check that they have a relevant version, for instance https://web.archive.org/web/20230527225533/https://cee.technion.ac.il/en/people/. This is an archive of the technion people page from May 27 2023. Now use the below as an example (I borrowed this from another page), looking at the source code, noting the "archive-url" part, and add this to all the relevant technion pages and include also archive-date. I did this for your 1st reference. Then please check these, as I cannot so I don't know if they are right or wrong.

Ping me when you have these in

Example:

Ldm1954 (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and patience. I have substituted all the unreachable refs using Wayback Machine, except for ref 4 (which wasn’t archived there). I found an alternative for that ref in the University of Haifa’s website. Hope it’s reachable from the US. Adig-pt (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice job. I just accepted it. You may want to add categories. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

🙏🏻👍 Adig-pt (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

References