User talk:Chris Howard

I saw this George_H._Miley. I thought maybe you would like to write up something for Edmund Storms just like it.

^[1][2], retired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, author of several books on CF/LENR ^[3][4]"The science of low energy nuclear reaction (World scientific, 2007)"

84.107.147.121 (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi IP-84.107.147.121, Storms appears to be an independent writer / researcher, retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, I found one book so far, published by World Scientific Publishing in 2007. I am doubtful he would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria - it is far easier for permanent University faculty, which are the most persons about I write bio's. But I'd be interested to be convinced otherwise. (Do make sure to spell out your references in that case, so that they're retrievable; the links are so far missing in your previous edit.) Cheers --Chris Howard (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, I have looked up your reference indications now (finding them back in the article "Cold fusion") and added some more:

• HuffingtonPost, mentions his laboratory in Santa Fe
• Wired.com and Netcom, refer to his 34 years at Los Alamos and his testifimony before a congressional subcommittee
• Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, World Scientific, 2007, ISBN 978-9812706201
• Status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften, Volume 97, Number 10, 861-881, DOI: 10.1007/s00114-010-0711-x
• Cold fusion revisited, with reference to publication in published in Infinite Energy 4, 21 (1998) 16
• article from Summer 2001 21st Century, the bio refers to 32 years work at Los Alamos
• preprint
• plus some material on youtube.
• Wikiversity, with a few citations

Nonetheless, I am not sure this material yields sufficient basis for an article satisfying Wikipedia:Notability. His special mention by Wired.com in Netcom may be a pin-pointed but not a very strong indicator. I would prefer to leave it at this, already to avoid a painful Wikipedia deletion discussion. --Chris Howard (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

hi,

Sorry about the links. Kinda silly I didn't notice that :/

I know of the controversy around cold fusion but you do have to wonder, should we perhaps attempt to cover scientific cold fusion or should we limit the encyclopedia to mainstream media cold fusion. I think the later would be an awful idea. We already have 1000 editors for the media fusion. The "it is wrong you musn't do it" editors seem sufficiently occupied. I think we can sneak in an article while they look the other way. hehehe

I've seen tons of references to his book on web pages which doesn't mean much to the wiki but this wired quote seems to indicate he is important.

• wired - Nov 1998 Michael McKubre and Edmund Storms are two leaders of a discreet league of scientists who are risking their careers - and occasionally their lives - to prove the viability of cold, or low-temperature, fusion.

A quick search also gave me this:

• Chicago Tribune - Jun 25, 1989 "Seeking cold fusion, researchers find its byproduct_tritium"
• Newsweek - Jul 19, 1993 "'Cold Fusion': Still Going"

Perhaps you can make a page in your userspace and dump the references there for future generations to find :-)

84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice Youtube link on the "it is wrong" citation. Concerning Wikipedia, I will not put it online without a clear-cut case for notability, and reliable info on his one or several books, 32 or 34 years work, initial education, etc - else it's not much of a bio. With the meager information there is, folks can be quick enough to google such tidbits of information if they need. No compelling case for "Why" to write an article at this point. --Chris Howard (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In discussions with User:AnnaBennett over what I considered to be an inappropriate link to a pdf file of a document apparently from the 'Journal of New Energy' (see User_talk:AnnaBennett#Journal_of_New_Energy), it was pointed out that the same article was also cited in the George H. Miley article - and it appears that this link was added by you. As I see it, there are two possible problems with the link. Firstly, the pdf link appears not to be to the 'Journal' itself, and as such may well be a copyright violation, and secondly, if the 'Journal' is the same one referred to here , it is clearly not a WP:RS, and citing it in the manner in which it is used seems rather questionable. I'd be interested to see what comments you have on this matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andy, after giving it some further thought and researching the topic further, I have now substituted the link to that publication with an indication of the publication in "Infinite Energy" (providing a link to that magazine's back issues, Issue 9/1996). --Chris Howard (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that "Infinite Energy" is much of a source for anything of substance,, but I suppose it'll do for a statement that the Miley and Patterson paper was published there. 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In any case the earlier-cited article and other articles in the 'J. New Energy' article are cited elsewhere, too, for example in the 2011 work by S. Krivit et al., published by John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0470894392 - which contains also similar work by Miley and others, on LENR, transmutations in thin-film reactions, etc., in the chapter by S. Krivit and in the chapter co-authored by G. Miley. --Chris Howard (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Krivet's 'Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia' is going to be WP:RS for matters of scientific fact, either, so we are rather back where we started if the source is being cited for anything of substance. Stiil, at least we've solved the possible copyvio problem, and avoided linking to the padrak.com website - it seems to contain some bizarre stuff... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Chris. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, fine, I have given feedback on that page, --Chris Howard (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Great to see the work you've been doing on Spacetime algebra. I've left a note on the talk page regarding the way that the word "spinor" is used by much of the GA crowd. This was something that led me into considerable confusion, as I realised only slowly that this is different (or, at least, I do think it is different) to how the word has been conventionally used in physics. So I'd be really grateful if you could expand on this.

PS. Do you have the book by Lounesto? It seems to me that this gives a good development and presentation by somebody who isn't Hestenes, so adding page-cites in the article to his discussion might be of considerable benefit. Jheald (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noting. Yes, I have the book, and concerning the various ways of seeing "spinor" I have expanded the "History" section with references from the book.

I have also read your comments on the article's Talk page; I have checked to see if I find secondary sources that might put Dorst's way of presenting spinors explicitly in context with spinor spaces as minimal left ideal. Haven't found much; of interest might be , , (within those documents, the relevant places can be found via fulltext search for "spinor"). --Chris Howard (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now found a much more conclusive reference. Chris J. L. Doran, Anthony N. Lasenby: Geometric algebra for physicists, Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 0-521-48022-1, p. 268–271 It discusses the spinor when seen in analogy to a rotor, and several examples of a “one-to-one map between conventional quantum mechanics and the multivector equivalent” – the one-to-one map is given for spin-up and spin-down states, for Pauli operators, and for the unit imaginary of quantum theory. --Chris Howard (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the inquiry, I tagged it because of some syntax and tone mistakes in the body and lead of the article. I wanted to give the guild of copy editors a chance to improve the article, and make it sparkle. But if you are up to the task you can do some copy editing and remove it.Wrathofjames (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it sparkles more now ;-) --Chris Howard (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I came across the redirect page Kevin J. Sharpe while I was doing New Pages Patrol. I am trying to understand what your intention was with this page. Are you intending to create a page eventually for the mathematician, and want this page Kevin J. Sharpe to be the site of the eventual article? Or did you intend this page to redirect to an article named Kevin Joseph Smith which you will write later? (It seems odd to create a redirect page before creating the article). It looks like you were trying to clear up some earlier confusion with the historian, who I gather did NOT go by the name Kevin J. Sharpe. You had Kevin J. Sharpe pointing toward a disambiguation page, Kevin Sharpe, but there is no need for a disambiguation page when there are only two possible articles; instead the two articles should be clarified with a WP:HATNOTE at the top of each article. For right now I have changed Kevin Sharpe from a disambiguation page into a redirect to Kevin Sharpe (historian) since that is the only existing, relevant article. I was going to propose deletion of the page Kevin J. Sharpe as there is no article for it to point to. However, I wanted to check with you first. Are planning to 1) expand this page into an actual article in the near future, under the name Kevin J. Sharpe? If so the page could be retained for right now as a WP:STUB if you put in a sentence or two, or you could ask an administrator to WP:USERFY it to you, so that you can work on it at your leisure without anybody breathing down your neck about it. Or are you planning to 2) write an article, but to call it Kevin Joseph Smith? If so it seems odd to create the redirect page first. If you are 3) NOT planning to write an article about the mathematician any time soon, then let's just delete Kevin J. Sharpe. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit of patience only - just a few hours ago I cleared out the Kevin Sharpe vs. Kevin J. Sharpe by moving the page, and am actually just right now writing the article on Kevin J. Sharpe, which would thus save the administrators the trouble of deleting the current redirect page. Should be finished within an hour or so. (And no, not on Kevin J. Smith.) --Chris Howard (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to chime in and say that you are doing things in a thoroughly confusing manner, the historian is the only Kevin Sharpe to have an article on WP, so does not need the (historian) in the page title, and as Melanie says a hat note along the lines of "if you are looking for the mathematician Kevin J. Sharpe" at the top of the article is sufficient. And you are the person who created the article and gave it the wrong title in the first place. Please try and be more careful in the future as I believe myself and Melanie have just spent a good while trying to figure out what was going on. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. When you have the article about Kevin J. Sharpe finished do you intend to paste it into the existing article? That will solve the redirect problem. Then each of the articles - the mathematician and the historian - should have a hatnote added at the top of the page. Example: {{About|the mathematician Kevin Joseph Sharpe|the historian|Kevin Sharpe}} will produce a notice like this:

This page is about the mathematician Kevin Joseph Sharpe. For the historian, see Kevin Sharpe.

--MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Article created. Was follow-up of the work of the IP User:77.96.210.176 who cleared up the confusion among the historian and the mathematician-theologian on 08 April 2012 as visible from the IP's edit comments. Done. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I think its only fair:

		The Citation Barnstar
		For sorting out the tedious assembly of citations at David Hestenes.F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 15:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, keep up the hard work (yet rest also!). =)

I'd like to second this... and thanks also for helping to improve the NPOV in the same article. Rschwieb (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi the two of you, I have been very pleased by your barnstar to me back in April this year. Yesterday however, I edited my talk page to remove this barnstar, after there was evidence provided for "technical indistinguishability" of F=q(E+v^B) with a highly abusive editor . Yet in line with these doubts by others: , and especially , and , and in lack of behavioural evidence of the two editors being identical, I now revert my last edit (thus re-inserting the barnstar here), in the sincere hope that it was a false positive due to IP overlaps for ex. users sharing the same IP access points at university. In any case thanks Rschwieb for the feedback, and in dubio pro reo to F=q(E+v^B) ...and hoping that time will provide evidence... --Chris Howard (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This article starts giving biographical details such as what year he finished his Ph.D. before attempting to make clear what he is noted for. That is wrong. Could you re-organize this? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I have now added this into the lead, and thanks for pointing it out. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Hope you're well. I am writing to you with regards to the editing you did on Professor Fay Dowker's page.

I am a student of hers, and it was upon her approval that I edited her page before. She does not approve of your version and would like to request you to please stop doing that. I don't know who told you she won the Tyson Medal in 1978 - she wasn't even a teenager at the time.

Kind regards. Worldline Convergence (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hope you're well, too. Thank you for providing an explanation of your revert, and please extend Professor Dowker my regards. You are right that the year of the Tyson prize contained a typo, it was 1987 not 1978.

Concerning the other content of the edit to which you have objected, especially the citation in Lee Smolin's book that I had inserted was intended to contribute - to some extent at least - to "notability" in Wikipedia terms. Of course it can be argued that this spedcific information is not absolutely essential either and does not establish notability as such, and therefore in as far as there is any indication that Professor Dowker might object to it being mentioned, I have no problem in leaving it out.

But the notability really is under dispute, see the header of the article, and it would therefore be helpful if you could provide other material which would underline Wikipedia "notability".

Your revert also deleted a "citation needed" flag attached to the sentence concening Dowker's interests as a student, yet there is so far no citation for that sentence. Wikipedia is intended to contain only content that is verifiable in terms of reliable sources (WP:RS), especially in articles on living persons. The sentence on her interests as student is currently unsourced, and thus would need to be removed from the article. So if you are well enough acquainted to have access to published references about Dowker's life, it could be helpful if you would provide, if possible, a reference for that sentence; otherwise could you re-insert the "citation needed" flag or, better yet, please remove that one sentence?

In any case the main issue I see with the article at the moment is the question of Wikipedia notability, and I sincerely wish you good luck with your further work on the article. Kind regards from my side too, --Chris Howard (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to Maschen. It's too bad that he did not leave an e-mail address. He needs validation of what he does right. Who doesn't? Some individuals look for anybody they think they can get over on, and I've seen a lot of that in the last several years, but never anything as nasty as the Hobgoblin. P0M (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If Maschen happens to look at his page, our messages may help him reflect about his experiences with bit of detachment, relativize it all, and get over it. So I hope, at least. --Chris Howard (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - You two have succeeded. Maschen (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I noticed you have made some recent contributions related to geometric algebra in physics. You may be interested in editing gauge theory gravity or Riemann–Silberstein vector if you are familiar with the topics. Teply (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand this is not a bulletin board, but I should hope you appreciate that sec VII of the further reading source you adduced in an article is hardly sound or mainstream. Expanding nonlocal operations on δ-function distributions by power expansions has long been understood to be problematic, and should not be done unless one is confident of what one is doing, which the author does not. These problems have been addressed and resolved in the mainstream literature. Consider a Gausian coherent state for the oscillator removed from the phase-plane origin by a radius squared (energy) of, say, a billion ħ. All sensible, well-meaning, correct expressions will yield visibly classical behavior all the while using proper *-product evolution. Section VII of that reference invites people to do an unsound expansion, instead, and then wrings its hands for getting meaningless results, when, in reality, QM works fine, and it looks classical for high-action systems, as any mechanical engineer designing the planes you fly would tell one. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cuzkatzimhut, no problem on contacting me about this of course. Does your comment refer to the paper by Case which I added as "Further reading" to the page on the Wigner–Weyl transform? If yes, then what would be strange is that your criticism has not been voiced elsewhere. I have checked the articles citing this paper and could so far not find such critique. Furthermore, it's published in the American Journal of Physics, and it would seem normal that their review process would have spotted such an issue and held it back from publication if it was "hardly sound" as you say, or would at least have made sure this point was addressed more explicitly. I find sections I-III of Case`s article a remarkably well-readable introduction to the topic of the Wigner function, and section IV an interesting viewpoint on the example. If section VII is really amiss, then of course the article should be taken out of course, we would not want an unsound article to be cited as reference for further reading. But are you aware of a critical discussion of Case's article anywhere in the mainstream, and could you provide a link or reference? (Or are you sctually saying the peer-reviewed Americal Journal of Physics got it entirely wrong on this one? And I do not ask this as just a rhetorical question.) --Chris Howard (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying "AJP" got it entirely wrong on this one, or its referee(s) did. I would not trust everything ever published, just because it has been refereed---volunteer one-shot refereeing is not a guarantee of soundness. Still, I should concur with your positive assessment of that review article, including eqn (38) which I gather you are lauding, all except for section VII. I have not followed any controversy in the literature about the conclusions or implications, or impressions of section VII, and I have seen them before, but I have also seen sounder treatments; they appear unsound to me, and are at variance with lots of things that are known and omitted from that discussion. Note that discussion is of the "I do this and that and that and I end up with contradictory nonsense", not a firm statement of facts or conjectures. The broader issue is a how to one: How does one abstract macroscopic systems out of quantum systems in that formalism, in particular out of systems with large actions S (so ħ/S is small ) which often coincide with systems of huge quantum numbers. This is a very delicate art, involving multiple rescalings and switches of units, and it is well-known that a couple of wrong moves and one breaks one's neck. Recall how each term in the expansion of exp( -x) for huge x appears large, but isn't.

But it can be done right! A Voros pioneered the study in the late 60s. Ref 2 in that article, and ref 6, including its on-line updates, which I understand contain exercises addressing these technical issues, cover much of that territory. Sec VII of the reference in question takes several dangerous steps, and breaks its neck, metaphorically, and then concludes that this is treacherous territory. It could have informed the reader better if it utilized action-balanced units, where both x and p have units of √ ħ, and considered how two interfering gaussians lose their interference in phase space as their distance in space increases indefinitely (oscillations in p increase in frequency to cancel themselves); or how a coherent state (like his Fig2(a)) = ground state displaced to a phase space radius whose square amounts to an energy of, say a trillion ħ , rotating uniformly in phase space, eqn (50) in full accord with the Moyal equation handles the *-product just fine to produce a classical microscopic state, with suitable rescalings of units, etc...

Trying something Case did not have the patience to get to work and condemning the entire formalism by obscuring its proven huge utility (and advantage, indeed, superiority to others!) in understanding the classical limit hardly does a service to the reader. I find it misleading, but if you enjoy the rest of the review, I'd be out of order making faces there! I would mealy-mouth that "however, the section on the classical limit is not as complete and constructive", and does an injustice to that Formulation's subtly consistent beauty. I have the sense a great teaching moment was forfeited. The opportunity, which is crucial in understanding how classical entropy summarizes the classical limit of the quantum von Neumann entropy, has been handled serviceably by other references and books, as I indicated. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision including subtle demarcation looks optimal! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way I've been thinking that a new section "Classical limit" to the "phase space formulation" article would be a teaching opportunity to not miss. The Wikipedia-article on the "Classical limit" itself is rather brief in its consideration of the phase space formulation. --Chris Howard (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a classical limit stub, of course, but it doesn't do the trick. I am busy at the moment, but I may give it a try in future, unless somebody else were up to it.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you created the article on Koopman von Neumann–wavefunction. A couple days ago I requested creation of the article on Koopman-von Neumann classical mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Koopman-von_Neumann_classical_mechanics , but my request was not granted. Could you please recycle my article (with has a lot of info) into yours. It is very sad that some double work needed to be done. thanks. Denysbondar (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Denysbondar, I am thrilled about your message and glad to read your article proposal, of which I had been entirely unaware. It will take me some time to study it completely.

In writing the KvN-wavefunction article my aim has been to discuss underlying concepts and the context with other concepts of theoretical physics, and yet to keep the article as formula-free as possible; that is, to write a text that is precise and yet not "scary" to the casual reader. I have even placed all formulae and proof into a collapsed section. I would be pleased if we (you are most welcome to contribute!) could work in further content in a similar way in the next weeks or so. Best regards --Chris Howard (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now taken up some of the work on the derivation starting from operator axioms from the arxiv article and inspired from your Wikipedia article proposal.

Also, to keep you posted: I have subsequently chaning the placement of the "–" by moving it to Koopman–von Neumann wavefunction in line with established Wikipedia nomenclature. --Chris Howard (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thanks a lot for a well written article. Now I see why my submission was rejected! I finished merging the KvN entry with my previously rejected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Koopman-von_Neumann_classical_mechanics and it is no longer needed. Could you please delete it (or teach me how to do it).

Since the current article not just about the KvN wavefunction, I also would like to suggest to rename the Koopman–von Neumann wavefunction to more general Koopman–von Neumann classical mechanics or may be Koopman–von Neumann mechanics. Denysbondar (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

To keep you updated, I have already renamed the KvN page and deleted my previous entry. So no need for your input reagrding these issues. Thank for your collaboration! Denysbondar (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Denysbondar, good additions, especially as the two collapsed derivation sections (CM/QM from the operator axioms) offer a nice comparison. (Thwy are good to read also when opened in two separate browser windows next to each other for comparison.)

Also about the move, I do agree it is a better name, so again: well done.

After some further thinking it now struck me that because the article is called KvN classical mechanics, a reader would expect a full description of the theory in Hilbert space: with superposed states, wave function collapse etcetera. I am adding this to the article now; do feel free to add, correct, or change. Glad to collaborate with you too, --Chris Howard (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris! I put a {{technical}} tag on the text you wrote on quantum cognition modeling. Could you explain the content of this section a bit more? With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I have now re-written it in a way that should be much better to understand (and placing references to abstract mathematics where needed in brackets). Please give it a look and see if you want to remove the {{technical}} tag. Thanks for your feedback! --Chris Howard (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. It is still difficult - but then it is difficult matter, so I removed the tag. Lova Falk talk 13:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Good, and thanks also for the typo corrections. I have now added a (hopefully easier) intro from remarks of Anton Amann, which may help to put it in context. By the way, in case there should be a general impression that the section as a whole should rather be moved to a subsection in Quantum cognition, that could certainly be done. (As interesting as it is, I do not think that the subject is relevant enough at the moment to merit its own article.) Friendly regards, --Chris Howard (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It could be a good idea to move the section. I think very few readers looking for "Gestalt psychology" do this because they want to read about quantum cognition modeling... (even thought it was rather interesting once you had explained it better) Lova Falk talk 19:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have moved it now to its new place . In any case the section has profited from its brief excursion into the Gestalt psychology article and your feedback ;-)

Of course, in its new place, the section may well change again, for example some of the easier-to-understand parts may be removed if some editors find it not technical enough now... so we should not count on it all remaining there in its current form. In any case, please feel free to change or shorten further that part of the text that has now remained in the Gestalt psychology article, or to move its content as you may find fit. It's been good discussing it with you. With friendly regards, --Chris Howard (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I feel the same way. And I now know what non-commutativity is. Lova Falk talk 08:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

PS Feel free to remove the bullets I put in. I like bullets very much for the clarity they create, but I know not everyone agrees... Lova Falk talk 09:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed bullets can be helpful. Yet here it's a literal quote, and the quoted text is without bullets - so better no in this specific case. --Chris Howard (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

You might want to drop by at Bispinor and comment on/edit the new material there. YohanN7 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yohan47,

A brief question to start: in your sentence: "In (C2), the second equality follows from [...]", what do you mean by "second"? The equation C2 just has one equality at the moment.

I haven't looked through all of the text yet. I quite like your introduction passages. Possibly you could go yet further in that sense, adding some more prose sentences as if you were for example trying to explain the general idea to a 17-year-old who is mathematically brilliant but does not know anything about representations of Lie algebras. Or if that's a too tough call, consider a student of physics who has just completed the first year of studies.

For example, your section on gamma matries is very well readable. Yet the reader may have some further or simple questions like: how many linearly independent basis elements are there altogether in that Clifford algebra (and which)? It may seem redundant, but in a Wikipedia article about such a subject it's probably better to risk to say things twice rather than to risk to lose the reader.

A different point on which you might know an answer: Any point to say that a bispinor can be seen as a left ideal of an algebra? See arXiv:quant-ph/0011026 for details. Cheers, --Chris Howard (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Good points!

• That (C2) equation was originally a string of equality's which it obviously isn't any more. (I originally planned to cover the complete Clifford Algebra, and the various SO(3;1) representations spaces contained therein. It became too big and complex. The leftovers will probably go into Dirac algebra.)
• I'll try to add more explanatory text, but this is difficult balancing. It must not evolve into a textbook. I don't think it can go into what a representation is. That would be two steps down, but perhaps the Lorentz rep article could, in prose, say what a rep is. In that article, it would be only one level away in abstraction.
• There are 16 LI gamma matrices, I'll add that. The "which" part (totally antisymmetrized products of gammas) will have to go into Dirac algebra.
• I better pass for now on the final Q, but I'll read the linked article. YohanN7 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Yes indeed it's a question of balance, and with your recent additions the Bispinor article has already become quite good in giving the reader a helping hand.

FYI I have noticed there are a few statements about the bispinor in other articles:

• (cited from: Dirac spinor) "In quantum field theory, the Dirac spinor is the bispinor in the plane-wave solution [...] of the free Dirac equation"
• (cited from: Representation theory of the Lorentz group) "This is, up to a similarity transformation, the [..] Dirac spinor representation of so(3,1). It acts on the [...] bispinors, by matrix multiplication"

Would this be of interest for the Bispinor article too? --Chris Howard (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the articles should fit together - which they don't because there is an error in eqn E23 (which should be E2) in bispinor ;). I'll go over what I know needs fixing tomorrow night. YohanN7 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You may want to respond there, another editor questions it's purpose. Thanks. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 05:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, and I have replied on the article's talk page. --Chris Howard (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

you contributed most of the references in Homo reciprocans. The article's lonely source, that IZA Discussion Paper, has already appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02242.x). Could you please check whether the statements and facts in the article still hold? If not, please remove or replace them. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I have now also seen your message in this edit). The peer-reviewed article already appered in 2009; I do not have access to its full text content; in my edit I had cited the IZA Discussion Paper which was (and still is) available online. I do agree however it would be preferable to review the statements on the basis of the peer-reviewed article. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please use the same citation style as in the rest of the article. Thus not "vcite2" but "cite journal" Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There had been a bibliographic error. For correcting it, I used the Citation Template Generator you had recommended (link), and that tool has apparently adopted a new citation style in the meantime. In any case I'm fine with maintaining citation style in the earlier format on those articles where it is already in place. --Chris Howard (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Hans-Joachim Haase, Chris Howard!

Wikipedia editor Shibbolethink just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

keep up the great work! You might want to make the psychiatrist article before you make the disambig

To reply, leave a comment on Shibbolethink's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks for creating Hans-Joachim Haase (optician), Chris Howard!

Wikipedia editor Shibbolethink just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

keep up the great work!

To reply, leave a comment on Shibbolethink's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi, I'm Roches. Chris Howard, thanks for creating Job control (workplace)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The first paragraph would make a good lead, so you will only need to add a title for the second section of the article. I'd separate it myself but I'm not familiar enough with the material to create a good title for the main body of the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Roches (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mediation Support Unit, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Clearing house and On call. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw that a couple weeks ago you reverted a couple of changes on the Breast cyst article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cyst&type=revision&diff=660196677&oldid=659972107 Would you be amenable to me putting back in the removed information if it was tidied up so that it didn't break the existing citation to mayoclinic.com. Regardless, I think it would be beneficial for me to update the existing mayoclinic citation to have more information like the cited web page's title etc. What do you think?

SesquiZed (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind... I misunderstood what you had done and what was wrong in the main edit you reverted.

SesquiZed (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Chris often people tag any sentence without a ref. So what I do is often add them as hidden refs like this Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll remember that. Best --Chris Howard (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Retinal birefringence scanning

added links pointing to Screening and Fovea

Strabismus

added a link pointing to Screening

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Newborn screening, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vision. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I have reverted your good-faith edit in Choiceless awareness. This was done for the following reasons:

1. There are several references to various Jiddu Krishnamurti works in the article. These are primary sources, and although there was an effort to choose them carefully and balance the article, I feel that more of the same would again tip the balance. I would think that Krishnamurti's views are amply represented in the article as is.
2. The source that you used is actually included in the article References and cited in the article Notes (perhaps these were missed because what is cited is the Foreword of this source). Granted this is a different edition of the work, but it is substantially the same work/source.
3. Respectfully, your contribution broke with the article's presentation and format, which uses list-defined references and shortened footnotes.

Thank you for your (hopefully continuing) interest in contributing to this article. The above is by no means a rebuke or warning of any sort. Additionally, if you feel that the reverted reference must be included for some reason, we can discuss it. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP, thank you for your message; I presume you are watching the page here, therefore I'll be glad to answer you here, too:

1.: One of the points I found remarkably clear-cut in that wording was K's statement "You can't be totally aware if you are choosing." To me, this statement - that according to Krishnamurti a person who chooses is definitely not in a totally aware state - makes it very much more understandable what the subject of the article stands for. So the idea behind the edit is not to tip any balance, but rather to bring the concept into clearer focus. Indeed there may well be better ways of stating that than by including a quote - ideally, for example, based on a secondary source with a discussion or interpretation of that statement (or another statement along the same lines). In case you do see my point and possibly find some value in it, do you see any better way of explaining this or pointing it out in the article?

2. and 3.: Regarding the other points, in as far as it's a question of formatting the reference(s), of course the references/notes and their formatting should certainly be adapted to the rest, no need or intention of breaking with the article's presentation.

Regards --Chris Howard (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this is the IP user. I agree that Krishnamurti's statement is striking. I did reinsert it, however, in the previous paragraph, and by quoting the section heading only ("You can't be totally aware if you are choosing") along with a weblink to the text. Please see here. It is in Note 4. This note includes secondary sources that support Krishnamurti's statement. Is this agreeable? 72.43.99.146 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP, I like the present version, now after your partial re-insertion. One further remark only, which is that personally I would tend to have it not merged into note 4 together with "Jones 2015", but rather as a separate inline reference, but that is more a matter of choice, I suppose, and it can also very well stay as it is now. It's good to have a constructive exchange of thoughts like this. Regards --Chris Howard (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nativism (politics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unionism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Encyclopædia Britannica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page App. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spiritual ecology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khalifa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Chris Howard. I thought the following book might be of some interest. If you want, you may contact me on my talk page or via e-mail.

• Georgiev, Danko D. (2017). Quantum Information and Consciousness: A Gentle Introduction. Boca Raton: CRC Press. ASIN B077YQCZ7N. ISBN 9781138104488. OCLC 1003273264.

Danko Georgiev (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Danko Georgiev, Thank you for the notice. I've looked through some previews of the book now, and some of the topics indeed seem interesting. On the other hand, it has not piqued my curiosity all that much that I'd be interested in buying it given that it does have quite a hefty price tag, nor would I want to ask for, or receive, a special offer or preview of any sort (I try to never ask for any favors whatsoever in connection with Wikipedia), so in the end I'm sorry to say that for now it is just: Thank you for your notice and I do not at present intend to look further but will certainly keep it in the back of my mind. --Chris Howard (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human capital flight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Return migration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

作家星章

Dear Chris, This is Donita from Taiwan. I translated the Linda Rising page into Chinese yet not publish it. The Agile Summit is coming soon. I hope that people in Taiwan can know more about Linda, hence I would like to ask for your permission for publishing the Chinese version. Please let me know how you think about it as soon as you read my message. My e-mail is listed below: donitaforbusiness@gmail.com Donita.Liao (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Donita,

Thanks for your interest! I am pleased that you like the article on Linda Rising and that you want to use translate it to use it for the Agile Summit 2019.

About translating and using it, actually you already have the permission to do so on the basis of the licensing that applies in Wikipedia, and you just have to indicate Wikipedia as source (see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content): In this case, the article was written after 2011, so you can re-distribute the text page in any form by simply including a hyperlink or URL to the original Wikipedia article.

It would also be very nice if you would make translated Wikipedia article about her (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects.)

Hope to hear from you again about how your projects are progressing,

Best wishes, --Chris Howard (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Frederick W. Brock, Fusion disturbances in binocular vision. Chris, do you have access to the above reference? I would like to read. IISRaj (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not, except for the first page preview. You might want to place a resource request, see also WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Greetings --Chris Howard (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Chris Howard,

Thank you for creating Wolfram Goessling.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

the article needs more categories

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Jmertel23}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Jmertel23 (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chatty Café Scheme is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chatty Café Scheme until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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.

DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Howdy! Way back in 2012 you added content to Non-squeezing theorem about work of De Gosson and the Robertson–Schrödinger–Heisenberg inequality. The article cited is an unpublished 2008 preprint with no citations, and I am wondering if you know whether this work really is notable (maybe there is a published or cited article by De Gosson that discusses it further?). See Talk:Non-squeezing_theorem#Work_of_De_Gosson. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mathwriter2718, thanks for your question and your patience (I've been away for quite a while). There are in fact published articles by De Gosson on this, see:

• Costa Dias, Nuno; de Gosson, Maurice; Nuno Prata, João (2019). "A Refinement of the Robertson–Schrödinger Uncertainty Principle and a Hirschman–Shannon Inequality for Wigner Distributions". ournal of Fourier Analysis and Applications. 25: 210–241. doi:10.1007/s00041-018-9602-x. Page 212.
• de Gosson, Maurice; Luef, Franz (December 2009). "Symplectic capacities and the geometry of uncertainty: The irruption of symplectic topology in classical and quantum mechanics". Physics Reports. 484 (5): 131–179. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.08.001.

I have added them now as further references to the article, and thanks for pointing it out. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)