Physicist. Overbooked. Aren't we all?

Traveling for work. Will mostly be out of touch. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bogdanov affair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lagrangian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

DYKEdit

See Template:Did you know nominations/Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections. This could get messy, but it could also be worthwhile. If you have any better hook ideas, please go for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I can't think of a better hook than the one you provided. I'm pretty sure the article would have to be semi-protected for at least the duration of its appearance on the Main Page, but my impression is that that is not uncommon. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

About your edit on 23 August 2019‎ to remove Avicenna-Bohm sectionEdit

Hi, Dear XOR'easter, thanks for your responsibility. Although this theory was recently published but it is a scientific theory which published in a peer-review journal. and Wikipedia is a reference for people to become familiar to the theory in the non-technical language. there is no COI for me to add this section and your reasons for removing it is not convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.196.189.114 (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it's very convincing. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David UU, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Booklet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Un-editing changes to the zbw hypothesisEdit

Who are you: XOR'easter? I did not undo any edit of yours. You appear out of the blue as the Great Censor. I would appreciate an answer as I spent a couple of days on my additions/editions on the Wikipedia article on the zbw hypothesis. You are pretty arrogant. Sorry to say. Any case - I think I am entitled to get an answer to my question: who are you? I am a real-life amateur physicist. You are a self-appointed censor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Louis Van Belle (talkcontribs) 16:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I urge you to read our policy on civility and to refrain from disparaging comments about the character or personality of other editors. As it happens, I am a real-life professional physicist, who in daily life is probably only about as arrogant as average for the profession. I heard of your changes by way of a notice posted at WikiProject Physics. I made changes following my honest understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, MOS:LEAD, etc.), based on years of experience editing here. If you wish to discuss the article, both its Talk page and that of WikiProject Physics are available to you. I note that you undid an edit of mine in which I did nothing but turn journal titles into the appropriate links. This seems counterproductive. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Censorhip...Edit

I am not going to bother. I know your kind. :-) You did not send me any critical comment on what I wrote. A big shining lie. Confirms wikipedia.org is **ll**it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Louis Van Belle (talkcontribs) 17:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not edit your own comments after someone else has replied to them [1][2]. That's confusing and rather rude. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Look bastard - you hadn't replied and I don't know where your comments come from. I've got credentials. You are a no-one patrolling Wikipedia. No worries. As said, I know your kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.224.224.59 (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding BKFIPEdit

I just learned today that this IP has been editing here for 15 years. I am a little freaked out because I have been in the habit for years of watching a tv show or movie and then going to the article for the show and then the cast member articles as well. Where I see "best known for", I usually remove it because it is an editor's evaluation that such-and-such was what they were best known for. I thought I was zapping a little editorial OR. Every little bit helps, and all that.
Now I find out that some recalcitrant troll has been doing what I've been doing. I am not sure how to feel about that. How do I differentiate myself from them? Do I just stop removing Best Known For in articles? I'm quite open to suggestions here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The thing about BKFIP is that they make a mix of good, neutral and bad edits and will defend all of them with abusive behavior. I might cut "best known for" language myself if it reads like promotion of an actor who is only known for one role. They'll remove "best known for" in cases where it is actually an informative and well-documentable claim (like, Einstein is better known for relativity than for his model of Brownian motion, and Darwin is better known for evolution than for The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs). I'd say to follow your conscience, check to see if the "best known for" claims are supportable by any secondary sources, and remove them if you see fit. If someone reverts, well, that's what polite discussions on the Talk page are for. If you're worried you're acting like BKFIP, you're probably not acting like BKFIP. XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm coming off a block for behavior that has been problematic, and now I am second-guessing everything I do, as I want to be a better editor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi trying to reach you with quick questionEdit

  brief question
Hi there, I'm a reporter with the Washington Post, trying to reach you with a quick question about your work on this site. I'm at 202-334-5024. Thx. Isaacstanleybeckerpost (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

hi againEdit

  hi again
Sorry if this is being sent in a weird way. I've never messaged someone via Wikipedia before. Totally understand about wanting to protect your identity, which I can do.

Would you be willing to connect on background, meaning I'd never pass along or otherwise publicize your name or any contact information? Isaacstanleybeckerpost (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with being background. XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post articleEdit

Please see [3] . Please put any comment for the Signpost on my talkpage. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the removal of citations to The New American has not gone unnoticed by the title itself. For obvious reasons, I will not give its article any further publicity by providing a link. Take care. Philip Cross (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I did provide a link [4], if it has a WP-article I tend to add it. I also tend to think of having annoyed a publication like that as a badge of honor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
XOR'easter, way to go! Thanks for speaking so positively about what we do here: We are "adhering to a minimum standard of scientific, historical or journalistic respectability" (quoted from the article). So true. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk pageEdit

As someone who has recently started writing about academics, I really enjoyed reading your talk page section on writing academic biographies and science articles. May use it sometime. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very kind of you to say. XOR'easter (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Foreign interference in the 2020 United States electionsEdit

 On 2 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to Robert Mueller, who investigated foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, foreign interference in the 2020 US elections is ongoing? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Duly noted! XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Mission impossibleEdit

Hi. Regarding this edit [5], "Their mission" was my subsection title because I couldn't think of another one. I figured someone would change it sooner or later, so I didn't worry about it. But I like your characterization - very funny - I'm still laughing. It is too bad we can't actually use titles like "Mission impossible", but then the public wouldn't take us seriously. Besides, that is what humorous essays and funny personal subpages are for, as well as for letting of steam. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alertEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Politrukki (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Anne Harrington for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anne Harrington 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/Anne Harrington 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. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Just leaving a comment here to note that the discussion was closed as a speedy keep before I could even get to it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quantum foundations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantum theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

FTR, fixed. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

 
Hello, XOR'easter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Barkeep49 (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Your editing of Douglas Ulmer articleEdit

Your habit of excising anything you randomly choose is causing some of what remains to be counter-factual and poorly written. Please pay attention to how you change the meaning of sentences or phrases when you do this.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not "excising anything" that I "randomly choose". I am simply holding the article to the standards of reliable sourcing that apply across Wikipedia, as any participant in this project should. You have a conflict of interest regarding Prof. Ulmer and have been warned not to edit the article yourself. XOR'easter (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Gleason's theoremEdit

You are missing the fact that there is now also a pretty elementary proof of Gleasons' theorem due to Keane and others. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231919294_An_elementary_proof_of_Gleason's_theorem Richard Gill (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Huh. I honestly thought that was already in the reference list. Thanks for pointing out the omission. XOR'easter (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gleason's theoremEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gleason's theorem 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 Legobot, on behalf of Jakob.scholbach -- Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

tq templateEdit

Just FYI, your {{tq}} failed because there was an equal sign in the argument. You either need to wrap them with {{=}} (like here), or explicitly put a 1= to mark the first unnamed parameter. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis, ah, good to know. I figured it might be something like that, but I didn't feel like debugging at the time. Thanks! XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bloch sphereEdit

Actually, vectors and states are not synonymous, as states must be normalized, and vectors do not. I had said vectors because the vectors corresponding to the POVM elements are not normalized, and I wanted to emphasize that they are anyway orthogonal to the states. But you're right, it's easier to understand that orthogonal states are antiparallel, and people can deduce that the same applies to POVM elements. Also, the Bloch sphere representation of POVMs is not explained anywhere, so maybe it is better to only talk about state. Tercer (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, finding the right way to concisely express all the fiddly details about normalization of POVM elements and such is tricky, and fitting it into an image caption even more so. Thanks much for your work improving the POVM and Gleason's theorem articles! I had vaguely intended to work on density matrix in the near future, since that page also seems to be a pile of fragments added by various people without an overall plan, and then tagged by other people who don't always know what is standard textbook stuff and what isn't. XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you appreciate my work. Thanks for getting Gleason's theorem in good shape!
Indeed, Density matrix is a mess of random facts. And it still misses definition of a density matrix as the operator giving the statistics of a local measurement done on an entangled state! I'm more worried about Measurement in quantum mechanics, though, that's a dumpster fire. It focuses on the obsolete vision of measurement as measuring an observable, makes incorrect statements about projective measurements, doesn't use the word (which was a problem to me as I wanted to link to it), doesn't even mention POVMs, and has this bizarre talk about "measurement of the first kind" and "measurement of the second kind". I'm hesitant to tackle it, though, due to the enormity of the task. Tercer (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Yikes, that's a dumpster fire indeed. I will share it around with colleagues who do quantum info in order to horrify them. (The "first kind"/"second kind" business seems to confuse some terminology invented by Pauli with a second-hand understanding of von Neumann's textbook.) It's possible that the only way to improve it would be to start from scratch, which would be quite a big job indeed.
In case you don't have it watchlisted, the GA review of Gleason's theorem has seen some further activity. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Victoria Talwar for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Victoria Talwar 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/Victoria Talwar 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. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Your input is requestedEdit

at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.

Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)