Jump to content

User talk:TheLonelyPather/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

DYK for Charm quark

On 1 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charm quark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the charm quark made physicists eat hats? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark 2. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Charm quark), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 16,367 views (682.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Your WikiCup submission: Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark 2

Hi TheLonelyPather, thanks for participating in the WikiCup. You recently submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark 2 for DYK points, but unfortunately it is not eligible for DYK points because it was nominated to DYK as a newly promoted GA. I know this can be disappointing, but Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Did you know? states that only newly created or expanded DYKs are eligible for DYK points. The rules specifically exclude DYK submissions from receiving points if their appearance on DYK is solely because the article was a newly promoted GA. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh! I see. Thanks for kindly explaining the rules and letting me know. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello TheLonelyPather,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Xu Ruiyun

On 3 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Xu Ruiyun, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1940 Xu Ruiyun became the first Chinese woman to receive a PhD in mathematics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Xu Ruiyun. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Xu Ruiyun), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

– Hilst [talk] 20:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

New article - John Paul (scientist) deceased - advice please?

Hi. As someone who reviewed this article and made some suggestions (which I though I had corrected), please can you help with advice. I created an article as a beginner, which was intended to reflect the history and achievements of someone who lived at the end of last century. As a beginner, I didn't expect it to be without faults and have tried to correct these. More recently I posted a request for advice on a Talk page of someone who had suggested that some of the citations weren't reliable sources. This was to clarify which citations were of concern and how I might correct this. A couple of minutes later another contributor recommended the whole article for speedy deletion. This article represents months of effort to try and find research which backs up the claims. No-one stands to gain in any way from this article. Please can you help advise on how I navigate this minefield and prevent all my efforts from being deleted! Thank you. Gcwcd (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louis Zhang Jiashu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Louis Zhang Jiashu 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 Sawyer-mcdonell -- Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti Looks like some one beat you to it! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the club

The Featured Article Medal
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! It is too arduous. Can't imagine how people get dozens of FAs ... Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
It never gets easy, but like most things, it gets easier with practice. Anyway, well done, a serious achievement. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Cross Temple, Fangshan

Congratulations, TheLonelyPather! The article you nominated, Cross Temple, Fangshan, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Congratulations TheLonelyPather, you are hereby awarded a Triple Crown for your incredible contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the great work! Damien Linnane (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louis Zhang Jiashu

The article Louis Zhang Jiashu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Louis Zhang Jiashu for comments about the article, and Talk:Louis Zhang Jiashu/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sawyer-mcdonell -- Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
One year!

Congratulations to recent quality articles! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for seeing the "quality contributor" in me one year ago! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Qiao'ergou Catholic Church

On 18 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Qiao'ergou Catholic Church, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an abandoned Catholic church in China was used by a party school? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Qiao'ergou Catholic Church. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Qiao'ergou Catholic Church), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Four Award

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Cross Temple, Fangshan. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Your rejection comment on draft article "Draft:Polarization E and B modes"

Discussion

Before you reject a valid article, may I request you to please revisit your comments and tell: 1. Where does your quoted existing article "Polarisation (waves)" mention about E and B modes? The existing article is only about light waves - whereas this new article is about Polarisation observed in cosmic background radiations 2. You also say the proposed article is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" - may I know how is this possible when the article is cleary talking about a valid topic 3. Lastly, can you please point out where in Wikipedia currently are the E and B modes explained - which is relevant to both cosmic background radiations as well as gravitational waves? Are these topics contrary to purposes of wikipedia? I hope your comment was probably an oversight and you would be kind enough to remove the rejection comment. Regards, Jn.mdel (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page jaguar)
The point is that the content on Draft:Polarization E and B modes is likely to be better served as an addition to Polarization (waves) than in its own article, where it likely cannot stand alone on a general-purpose encyclopedia. Remsense诉 02:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure if you "remsense" is same user as "thelonelypather" - but your reply itself clarifies the validity of the proposed new article.
As far as independent article status is concerned, the 1st comment of rejection itself highlights the misunderstanding between light waves Polarisation and cosmic waves Polarisation - so please let the proposed new article stand on its own feet.
Lastly, all of above conveys that the rejection statement made initially that proposed article is "contrary to purposes of wikipedia" was written without applying mind and without reading the existing article "Polarisation (waves)" which does not refer to the proposed topic at all !!!
Hence, please be kind enough to remove the "rejection" banner from the new article and allow it to live and grow. Jn.mdel (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
(I am a different person who happens to read Pather's talk page sometimes.)
The fact that the larger article doesn't refer to the proposed topic at all is the point! It's an opportunity for you to make your contribution about an entirely new aspect in a place where many people are likely to see it.
I would recommend attempting to contribute to Polarization (waves), potentially asking on its talk page what editors there think about it being its own article. Remsense诉 03:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for a more positive and precise response - rather than a simple "rejection" banner !!!
I understand what you are saying that put it in the more-popular / more-read article and then hope for its segragation into a sparate topic. But that is exactly my point - this article is about polarisation modes applicable to cosmic background waves / density fluctuations / gravitational waves - it has got nothing to do with Polarisation of light waves !!! So I do not agree that I should add this to the existing article "Polarisation (waves)" - which is clearly and correctly talking about light waves - because such an addition would make the existing article incorrect and confusing.
Instead I can suggest that you may please update the article heading to "Polarization (gravitational waves) - E and B modes" - so as to make a clear distinction between the two topics.
Hope you find the above agreeable and can you please now proceed to remove the "rejection" banner from the article now - so that further information, images, etc. can be added from the already quoted references.
Regards Jn.mdel (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
This is unlikely to be sufficiently notable for its own article, and is likely to be accepted and published for that reason. For me to feel very differently, it would need to be a different article, I've made this judgement based on its present contents vis a vis our notability policy. That's why I'm suggesting what I am, so that you can contribute your work where it will be accepted. Remsense诉 04:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you please help me request a review of the "rejection" based on above points OR do you suggest that should I publish again the same content as a new article - with new title?
Can "Thelonelypather" respond please.
Because nowhere on wikipedia is "E and B modes" explained - except for cursory reference to these terms under "Cosmic Microwave Background" article Jn.mdel (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:PAGEDECIDE is a relevant policy page you should read, it should more or less answer your remaining questions. I'm not TLP, but I don't need to be to post straightforward references to site policy. Best of luck. Remsense诉 04:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure this page is supporting your point because all the processes mentioned on this page - which are "expected" of editors - none seem to be getting followed - no queries / no flags to add more information / no merge suggestion / no wider review suggestions / no expert involvement - but simply stating "rejection" without understanding the content and its distinction from Polarisation of light waves.
One just needs to google once and get as many technical references as can be from scientific institutions worldwide for the topic...
So finally what am I supposed to do now - abandon the article??? because I am not a regular editor like you all Jn.mdel (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
For the third time, I recommend adding a section on B and E modes to Polarization (waves), which is not just about light waves and could likely be improved from your contribution. This is what I think is best based on what you've written, the target page, and site policy. I have nothing else for you, unfortunately. Remsense诉 05:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I am again stressing that the proposed new article "Polarisation E and B Modes" is distinct from Polarisation of Light waves.
Do you put all types of waves under one article on wikipedia - NO.
Do you put all types of polarisation of light waves ONLY under one article - NO (because "Circular Polarisation" has a separate dedicated article also)
So why repeatedly suggest to put the new article content where it does not belong and instead would confuse the existing "Polarisation (waves)" article also - because the new article is not talking of light waves but of gravitational waves polarisation, etc.
My point is - this needs to be started as separate article - and slowly it would develop with addition of much more information, images etc. (you can even now go and see the proposed article's references added from chicago, harvard universities etc. - there are full websites on this topc!!!) - so I could not really understand how "Thelonelypather" could simply flag "rejection" - without understanding the content. Jn.mdel (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
It is about waves in general. Remsense诉 06:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense Thanks for taking care of my talk page. @Jn.mdel I apologize for being too brief in my rejection comments. I now offer you my complete reasons for the rejection.
  • Your draft talks about an aspect, or an attribute, of how we categorize wave polarization. It is best that the content be incorporated into the "Polarization (waves)" article instead of being a stand-alone article.
    • In this sense let's have a look at WP:PAGEDECIDE. Does other information provide needed context? Yes, "Polarization (waves)" gives an overview of what polarization is in general. What sourcing is available now? The sources you cited all talk about polarization or polarization patterns before touching upon the E and B modes. I think this again tells us it's best to put this information into the "Polarization (waves)" article.
  • The "Polarization (waves)" has the following statement: Surface waves or waves propagating in a waveguide (such as an optical fiber) are generally not transverse waves, but might be described as an electric or magnetic transverse mode, or a hybrid mode. I think the content of this article would go very well after.
The bottom line is, I believe the content of your draft should become a part of a larger article, "Polarization (waves)", rather than being a stand-alone article.
I now respond to some of the concerns you raised in your comments above.
  1. Where does your quoted existing article "Polarisation (waves)" mention about E and B modes? See my second point up there, "electric or magnetic transverse mode".
  2. The existing article is only about light waves -- "Polarization (waves)" is not just about the Polarisation of light waves, as shown by the first paragraph of the lede. Your draft has got a lot to do with the physics of the polarisation of waves in general.
  3. You also say the proposed article is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" - may I know how is this possible when the article is cleary talking about a valid topic See above. English Wikipedia is stringent on the creation of new stand-alone articles. That is the purpose of draft reviews.
  4. Lastly, can you please point out where in Wikipedia currently are the E and B modes explained Answered above.
  5. Do you put all types of waves under one article on wikipedia Yes, see Wave. And of course we have different types of waves, like gravitational wave, or cosmic background radiation, which is a type of electromagnetic waves. Your draft article describes the physics of waves, in particular the polarisation of certain waves, and so should go under "Polarisation (waves)".
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
If you do not fully agree, @Jn.mdel, we can go to WP:WikiProject Physics and seek further comments. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
ADDENDUM -- @Jn.mdel, I sensed that you have an emphasis on the polarisation of CMB. Well, if you kindly have a look at the article Cosmic microwave background, in particular the Cosmic_microwave_background#Polarization section, you would see "E-modes" and "B-modes", two subsections that are just budding. I think parts of your draft article can be copy-pasted there. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to respond - which ideally could have been clarified earlier - incase you had chosen to query before putting a "rejection" banner.
All your above responses - including some statements which are probably incorrect too - only support my humble submission that this draft article is needed - due to following few reasons:
1. Your quoted reference "Surface waves or waves propagating in a waveguide (such as an optical fiber)...." in "Polarisation (waves)" is about electric or magnetic transverse modes - you are correct - but this is exactly what I am submitting that those are NOT E and B modes (refer to a quick internet search clarification : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/104025/what-do-the-names-e-mode-and-b-mode-mean-where-do-they-come-from) - which mentions "....the "E-modes" and "B-modes" refer to polarization characteristics of radiation, not the actual electric and magnetic fields."
Hence, your assumption that E and B modes are same as transverse modes OR are already covered under existing "Polarisation (waves)" article are probably a little incorrect.
2. In response to my query that nowhere E and B modes are EXPLAINED currently (not just mentioned as terms) - you are referring to the existing "Polarisation (waves)" article which seems incorrect - as well as you are pointing to my own give example that just terms are mentioned in "Cosmic Microwave Background" article - but now your suggestion to start adding the draft article's content about these two modes in an article about "Cosmic Microwave Background" does not seem right - because these explanations alongwith images-still-to-added would overrun the original article's basic focus itself - instead it would be better to link the terms on "Cosmic Microwave Background" page to the proposed new article - which sounds more logical and correct
3. And lastly, the proposed draft article about E and B modes is not just about cosmic background radiation (which yes is a type of electromagnetic wave) - but also about Gravitational waves - which is a different vast topic altogether. So then, would it be advisable to copy-paste the proposed new article's current and future contents in all these multiple articles separately OR would it be better to create that content in one place (as is proposed in draft article) - and then add links from multiple other articles to the new article.
I think you would agree that the latter is a better option.
I would end by saying that it seems you also now agree that the content was NOT "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" - instead it is about initiating an article / stub on a topic which affects multiple fields and thus is proposed as a separate article from "Polarisation (waves)" article which is only about EM waves.
Rest you can also refer to the references given even now in the current preliminary form of this draft article itself - I hope it now finds merit to remove the "rejection" banner.
Regards, Jn.mdel (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, to WP:WikiProject Physics we go. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for being open-minded about putting it up for others views and expert opinions - sincerely appreciated Jn.mdel (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Polarization E and B modes

Discussion 2

I don't really agree with either of you! Several points, others can add here (as the prior discussion was long):

  • The title is awful, it should be something more like "Patterns of photon polarization", or (weaker) "E and B mode photon polarization patterns". This is what it is about, and I suspect that there are other patterns of polarization. You should check into ferroelectric polarization including vortices.
  • The article badly needed figures to make it clear what it was about. The Figures in the last link on the page should be there, not separate.
  • More examples need to be provided to demonstrate notability. I assume that they exist; if CMB is the only one then it can only go into the OMB page. However, I suspect that there is much, much more, for instance from a brief search there is doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.007|10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.007 about bumble bees using polarization pattern.
  • Better sources. Citing web text pages is not good form, as they won't convince many hard core physicists (myself included). If this is genuinely notable then there should be PRL/PR? papers on it with hundreds to thousands of citations, and refereed reviews.
  • Better explanation. The current page is a brief essay not a properly constructed page.

Rewrite from scratch, WP:TNT. The current article is not notable, but the topic might be. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

N.B., pinging @Jn.mdel so he sees this. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

And also @Remsense Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment received and appreciated. I don't think we need to bring Remsense into this–they're just watching over my talk page. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy to be a WikiJaguar lying in the bed I made. I think Ldm1954's plan is intriguing—it's always nice when someone who knows infinitely more than me makes me feel like I learned something. :) Remsense诉 12:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for bearing my messages - while TLP was away. I also echo your sentiment that - "it's always nice when someone who knows infinitely more than me makes me feel like I learned something. :)" Jn.mdel (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ldm1954 Would you allow me to copy your comments to the talk page of WikiProject Physics? I think Jn.mdel will reply to you, and you two will have a discussion on it. It is best that all discussions go public for the sake of consensus. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure that is a good idea; I will add a link myself. In general things get posted to that page, with the discussion elsewhere. Others will check those if they want to be involved. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Sir, we due regards and respect - I am not qualified enough to even try and have a discussion with you on a subject of physics. But i do sincerely respect your having taken out time to review and comment.
My effort was never meant to be a full-blown physics article of university standards - I literally came across this topic simply out of my own curious learnings on wikipedia all these years - and other allied sources. I am not even conversant with all the "PRL/PR" papers etc. terminology you mention.
The intent was to start a page / stub / article which could be written and understood in simple English by laymen like me - as is evident in the varied minor contributions I keep doing on varied topics of interest across wikipedia occasionally. I learnt something about gravitational waves and cmb on wikipedia - but did not find anything about E and B modes on wikipedia and so did the effort of finding out as much as I could in last few days and put it together to the best of my ability - so that something could be started - and then others and also experts could also join-in for shaping the same better.
I sincerely thank you for acknowledging that the current article is not notable but the topic is - atleast the validity of the need for such an article / stub is established. Jn.mdel (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of my comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics
@Jn.mdel Your article has two references, one which would be adequate for a short section of Polarization (waves) and one which is better covered by Cosmic_microwave_background#Polarization. These two articles already cross reference each other. The first step would be a section in Polarization (waves) and if that grew too be too long, we could split it out. But a separate article it not needed at this time. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually I read a bit more from the refs and turns out they are both about CMB, one is just background information on the physics of polarization applied to the CMB case.
What our encyclopedia really needs is better sources and content for Cosmic_microwave_background#Polarization Johnjbarton (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jn.mdel @Ldm1954 I did a search for sources on the topic of "E and B mode polarisation". I found that most articles on E and B polarisation modes are related to CMB. One can also check here on Google scholar. Some selections from PRL and PhysRevD, both of which are reputable journals in physics:
  • D. Hanson; et al. (30 Sep 2013). "Detection of B-Mode Polarization in the Cosmic Microwave Background with Data from the South Pole Telescope". Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (141301). -- This is from PRL and can be considered as reliable.
  • P. A. R. Ade; et al. (19 June 2014). "Detection of B-Mode Polarization at Degree Angular Scales by BICEP2". Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (241101). -- Another PRL article. BICEP2 is an experiment observing the cosmic microwave background.
  • J. T. Sayre; et al. (22 June 2020). "Measurements of B-mode polarization of the cosmic microwave background from 500 square degrees of SPTpol data". Phys. Rev. D. 101 (122003).
  • Cora Dvorkin; et al. (14 May 2009). "B-mode CMB polarization from patchy screening during reionization". Phys. Rev. D. 79 (107302).
LDM listed doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.007: Bumblebees Learn Polarization Patterns as a potential source. After giving it a close read, I found that it does not say anything about the modes of polarisation, and certainly does not mention E or B modes. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
To both @TheLonelyPather and @Johnjbarton: please note that my original comments suggested broadening to patterns of optical polarization. E & B are two, but there can also be ones in vortices, on flowers (bees) etc. Search on "Polarization patterns" please. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ldm1954 I agree that "Polarization patterns" is a notable topic, but the draft only covers E and B modes, as its title suggests. On this matter we have the article photon polarisation, which is in my opinion badly written. I think it will be good if @Jn.mdel adds material to photon polarisation in this sense, if Jn.mdel wants to write about E and B modes of polarisation, or other modes / patterns, that are not only limited to CMB? But again, discussions of polarisation patterns can be put into Polarisation (waves). Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
TO TLP and JOHN - I am overwhelmed by the efforts put in by johnjbarton to dig out several references - thanks a ton for helping in the efforts because I surely could not find these in my this lifetime. In addition I wish to add that the references already quoted by me of Chicago University clearly elaborate that specifically Gravitational waves ALSO produce B-modes - which is the signatures researchers look for to distinguish and identify them from E-modes background - so CMB is not the only focus of the new article - the confusion about CMB focus is generated by TLP's misunderstanding. Infact it is clearly mentioned in the original submission comment that this article is relevant to BOTH cmb and gravitational waves study - and so I am developing this as a separate content. Rest your comment about merging is not feasible keeping in mind the number of articles I will have to go and add the same into - including "Gravitational waves", "Photon Polarisation" etc. etc. - hence, compiling information in one place and linking from other articles where presently only the terms E and B modes occur is always better. Jn.mdel (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: This discussion started over the future of Draft:Polarization E and B modes. From the disucssion above @Remsense @Ldm1954 @Johnjbarton it seems that there could be an article or some content dedicated to polarisation patterns, or one could add information of E & B modes into the CMB article. These are not relevant to this draft. We can move on.
Therefore I encourage that @Jn.mdel create a new draft on polarisation patterns or add current information into CMB. I am happy to put the content of the draft into your sandbox if you want to use it, in case it is deleted too soon. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
TLP - your ONLY meaningful action should be to remove "rejection" banner and instead put a banner which says something like "needs more information, needs more citations, etc. etc. " because two experts have agreed on the notability of the topic and the issue about CMB focus is generated by your own misunderstanding (no contribution from anyone or me) - because the original submission comment of the article clearly states that it is relevant to BOTH cmb and gravitational waves study.
And even your own misunderstandings that this article is about transverse modes or only about CMB are all after-thoughts due to my multiple messages - because you had chosen to put a "rejection" banner without affording even one chance of any cross-clarification from the author.
Hence, I would NOW like to revert the original article's title change done by some other editor (probably in good faith) and continue updating the article - NOT IN SANDBOX - as notability of topic is already established and content is not disputed by both experts - only that it needs more structuring and more content.
Merging it with other articles is not feasible as I have repeatedly stated earlier too because if I start adding this proposed content to two articles - "Polarisation (waves)" and "Cosmic Microwave Background" then it does not solve the issue because then I would need to go and add it into "Gravitational waves" also, into "Photon Polarisation" also, into some new article which talks possibly about "Other modes of Photon Polarisation" also - this way it is endless and that is why I have requested that compiling information in one place and linking from other articles where presently only the terms E and B modes occur is always better - because my article's focus was not all types of Photon Polarisation OR only CMB - instead it mention in its original submission comment that this article is relevant to BOTH cmb and gravitational waves study - and so needs to be separately developed.
The merging suggestion only seems to be an after-thought face-saver because you had not suggested this initially - you had simply put a "rejection" banner.
So I once again request you to make amends and put "needs more citations etc. etc." banner and allow all of us (me, John, LDM and many more in future) to cultivate the article to live and grow. Jn.mdel (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
There's no reason to take their advice in bad faith. I agree that their suggestion would be the best course of action toward publishing an article on this subject. Remsense诉 03:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Assuming I am the "John" mentioned above, I want to reiterate that my opinion is that this article topic is not notable at this time. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I have made my validity points and I now withdraw - because collaboration about knowledge should not ever become a match with winners and losers. You all are doing immensely good work on wikipedia - please keep doing the same for benefit of so many.
Also, I later noticed that certain references dug out were by TLP - not johnjbarton - my thanks redirected to TLP with regards for same - though underplaying LDM references didn't sound good. Good day. Jn.mdel (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: Qiao'ergou Catholic Church

It is very interesting indeed, thank you for bringing attention to it. I also noted that the article mentions they had a Spanish missionary, Celestino Ibáñez y Aparicio [zh], who was also called "Yi Xinghua", so I also traslated his article (in Chinese) to Spanish. I'll certainly take into account the Luo Wenzao article, I'll put it on the "waiting list". ¡Un saludo! EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

An article for your perusal

The so-called "King of Shu Mountains" is visible in the background

Hi, my Anglish and suspectedly communistish friend.

I believe I created St. Anne's Church, Moxi shortly after your Yangliujie Catholic Church, just as the events in the Vicariate of Tatsienlu probably took place not long after what happened in the Vicariate of Kweiyang. I will vehemently argue that St. Anne's makes a much better dual with Yangliujie than Qiao'ergou.

Attached is the only picture beautiful of St. Anne's available in Wikimedia (personal opinion). Cheers! Uriel1022 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

— Oscar Wilde

To refrain from imitation is the best revenge.

— Marcus Aurelius
You win. No Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Glad you liked the show. Thank you for your thought on the article, I'll leave it for tomorrow. Happy weekend. Toodles! Uriel1022 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing for a Shandong missionary

Howdy! I know you're generally on minibreak at the moment, but I wanted to consult your advice on Frederick Seguier Drake. I have essentially exhausted all English sourcing I can find on him, beyond various trivial mentions in listings of missionaries and professors in early 20th century Shandong. I also don't really love how dependent I am on a PhD thesis here, but alas! It seems like you would, however, would a number of Chinese-language sources on missionaries in China during this time period, and would absolutely love any leads on sourcing if you ever have the time! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima thanks for asking me–yesterday I was literally looking at your user page and your upcoming projects, to admit shamefully. Kindly allow me to come back to you within 24 hours with sources (if any) and annotations on them. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@Generalissima, seek and ye shall find.
Useful secondary sources
This source has four sections: 1) a brief biography of Drake, 2) his works in Shandong and 3) Hong Kong, and 4) his research on religions in China, in particular Buddhism and Nestorian Christianity. It is 144 pages in total, so I suppose everything is covered in good detail.
Daoyuan is a Chinese folk religious movement. A Chinese Christian, Hou Xuefang (侯雪舫), converted to Daoyuan. Drake had some interactions with him, which this paper studies in detail.
Drake's writings and publications
From my little research (done in 15 minutes) it seems that Drake published quite a lot.
  • According to the records of Hong Kong Baptist University (see here), Drake edited the book History of the Christian Church (教會史, a history of Christianity in Chinese ... !), which was published in 1950.
  • Here's also a 1968 review on the Symposium on Historical, Archaeological and Linguistic Studies on Southern China, South-East Asia and the Hong Kong Region, which he edited. The symposium collection came from an academic conference he hosted in 1961 at HKU. Worldcat
  • Drake, Frederick Seguier (1937). Nestorian monasteries of the T'ang dynasty and the site of the discovery of the Nestorian tablet. Peiping.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
I found this "book" at my library's database, with a note that says it's a reprint from Monumenta Serica, II, 2, 1937, so I cannot fully determine whether it is a book or a paper.
I trust that you have exhausted your search in the English circles. If you need the first two secondary sources, please send me an email so I can reply to you with pdf attachments.
Let me again lament at the grim future that no work will be left for me to do if you, by this speed, cover all major Chinese missionaries and sinologists before mid June./s Our Wikipedia research interests overlap greatly, so please do not hesitate if you want to work on something together in the future. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
wonderful, thank you so much! I will badger my sinophone friends into translating these. :D Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
oh, for the M. A. Thesis; has this actually been cited by anything? Masters theses are sadly only useable by current guidelines if they are cited by other, more reliable sources :( Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not certain about this. cnki.net (China's "Google scholar", see here for a search on the word "林仰山") says that this dissertation has been downloaded 225 times but cited for none. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps you should still download it, and check its bibliography section. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll check it out to scavenge those sources. Thank you very much, yet again! By the by; if you haven't had the chance to check out the WP:DISCORD, I think you might like it. I coordinate a lot on these articles on a thread over there. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Laura–my discord account is somehow related to my IRL identity. I think I can register a different discord account and join. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Yangliujie Catholic Church

On 9 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yangliujie Catholic Church, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Chinese Red Army housed its political directorate in a Catholic church in 1935? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yangliujie Catholic Church. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Yangliujie Catholic Church), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Guide for the translators

Just stumbled upon something interesting that may be worth reading for your guide: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA -> Official OKA instructions to its translators (off-wiki) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou, @Piotrus. OKA's standards are high and their articles are usually long (FAs?), but I will read it in my spare time. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Not FAs, but good. Although not good enough for some. See discussion I recently started here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#"Release history" tables

Hi there. I called Leehsiao and Andrew318 for explanation at the WikiProject talk page, but no response so far. And suggest that change "Label" to "Distributor" at the "Release history" table. If you’re able to could you leave your opinion on the matter, if possible, as well as Chinese talk page. 2001:D08:2911:D6A2:17DD:1A0C:4E3F:6583 (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheLonelyPather/Archive_5&oldid=1239461629"