# User talk:Paul Wormer

Citizendium Getting Started
Join | Quick Start | About us | Help system | The Author Role | The Editor Role
Essentials | How to start a new article | For Wikipedians | Other
Home Welcome Page

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Aleksander Stos 12:32, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

## Scientific method

Hi Paul, please take a quick look at Scientific method and make sure you are satisfied with the changes since July 21 and we will be good to go. Thanks, D. Matt Innis 12:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

## Anthony.Sebastian approves 24-Jul-2009 version Scientific method

First class article. Anthony.Sebastian 17:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

## Are changes I made sandbox version 'chemical elements' okay

Paul,

I believe I responded to your suggested changes my sandbox version of 'chemical elements'. If you're okay with that version as a working version for continued collaborative development, please indicate so on: http://en.citizendium.org:8080/wiki/Talk:Chemical_elements#Lede_revised_in_response_to_Paul_and_Peter.

If Peter does the same, I will get Milton's okay to replace the current Main Article with it.

Thanks. Anthony.Sebastian 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

## I have enemies everywhere!

Thanks, Paul, I hadn't bothered to look at that place for a couple of month now. Wonder who these characters are and why they're so agin me? I musta been arrogant to the wrong person somewhere along the line, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 14:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A riposte that may or may not amuse you.... [1] Hayford Peirce 05:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

## Article on Sturm-Liouville theory

Hello Paul,

Sometime back I proposed moving the WP article on Sturm-Liouville theory to CZ and adding a proof of the orthogonality of solutions with distinct eigenvalues. Since I am not an expert on S-L theory, I consulted with a collaborator who is knowledgeable about this topic and asked him if he would be willing to work on the WP article to improve it. After looking the article over, he said he had no suggestions for improving it, except perhaps by removing the reference to "the Arzela-Ascoli theorem and the spectral theory for compact operators." He thought this parenthetical comment was not in keeping with the direction of the rest of the article.

So, here is what I propose to do. I will move the WP S-L article to CZ, ticking the appropriate check-box indicating the WP source. If you agree, I will remove the reference to "the Arzela-Ascoli theorem and the spectral theory for compact operators." I will then create an addendum page on which to place the orthogonality proof and put a link in the main article to it. Let me know if this is an acceptable strategy. Dan Nessett 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds perfect. But please note that I'm not a mathematics editor, only an author. (I'm physics and chemistry editor). So, I'm interested in the stuff and know a little about it, but have no formal say in things mathematical.--Paul Wormer 16:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Should I contact a mathematics editor before proceeding? If so, do you know of one that might specialize in the area of this topic? Dan Nessett 17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for "butting in", but try Peter Schmitt who is a professor of mathematics in the University of Vienna and who is quite active in CZ. Milton Beychok 18:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that. Dan Nessett 18:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

## Dutch military history?

What would be a good name for a top-level article about Dutch military and naval history? I'm thinking here mostly for something to use as a parent topic in Related Articles pages, but filling out the Related Pages at the top level would be useful.

More modern events that could go under it include Cruiser#Battle of the Java Strait and Operation MARKET-GARDEN. The Dutch Marines have also done some impressive hostage rescues. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Howard, the Dutch do not have much of a military history. There is almost only the 17th century naval history. For instance, in Market Garden (not capitalized, I know your point of view but I can't bring myself to follow you) there were British, American and (oddly enough) Polish forces involved, no Dutch.--Paul Wormer 07:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

## Please comment on Earth's atmosphere

Paul, Earth's atmosphere is my first venture outside my field of expertise. I would appreciate any comments you may offer (on the article's Talk page). Milton Beychok 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

## Added acknowledgement to Earth's atmosphere about Equation 2 and Boltzmann distribution

Paul, I have added a footnote (reference 13) acknowledging that Equation 2 can be obtained from the Boltzmann distribution and linked it to the article you wrote on the Boltzmann distribution. Milton Beychok 16:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. I am not sure how your Barometric formula article would interfere with the Atmospheric lapse rate article I am writing. You can see my article in progress at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox and judge for yourself. I am about 75% finished with it. I might even finish it today. As I said above, I am no expert on atmospheric science or meteorology ... I just thought the Earth's atmosphere and Atmospheric lapse rate articles were needed to fit in with my air pollution dispersion modeling articles ... so I wrote them. Milton Beychok 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

## Garnet

Thanks Paul!

I took a recent family trip down to Montana, Garnet was one of the places I got to visit and I was completely amazed by what I saw, it really left a lasting impression on me which compelled me to create/work on the Citizendium article. Thanks again! --Mehar Gill 17:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

## Atmospheric lapse rate finished and created

Hi, Paul. Atmospheric lapse rate has been created if you want to see it. I decided to name it "Atmospheric lapse rate" because there are so many different lapses ... lapsed insurance, memory lapses, lapsed into a coma, lapse of eligibility, etc., etc. ... and I didn't want to use "Lapse rate (atmospheric)". Milton Beychok 04:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

## What do you think of the Universe article?

Paul, have you ever read the Universe article? What do you think of it? Milton Beychok 23:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it and see nothing wrong with it; but I don't know much about cosmology. It would probably need the hand of a professional cosmologist to bring it to an approvable state, but for a level 2 article (a little bit more than a stub) it seems acceptable to me. Why do you ask this, did you find any errors?--Paul Wormer 06:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No, just curious. Milton Beychok 06:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

## Moving the Associated Legendre Functions article toward approved status

Hi Paul. I would like to get the work done that will allow us to move the Associated Legendre Functions article to approved status. I notice that you have reinserted the inline reference to Edmonds. So the first thing to sort out is what are the rules for citations. The Edmonds citation is now in both the main article and the Bibliography. Do we leave it twice cited? Should we remove it from the Bibliography and leave it in the main article? Should we remove it from the main article and add a footnote that says something like "see reference 1 in the Bibliography"? Or something else. The other issue I see is the dead link to "potential theory". Should we leave this alone or should one of us import the WP article to CZ? Dan Nessett 15:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I answered about the inline references on the forum. I feel that CZ cannot do without footnotes and that those must be easily accessible, hence on the main page. I don't mind that some references are cited twice. As long as there are no hundreds of duplicates, it is not important. I expressed my opinion about dead (red) links on the forum: leave them as they are, a red link will spur somebody someday to write the article. (For instance today I wrote Euclidean space because I noticed a red link).--Paul Wormer 15:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions on the "where references should go" issue. I just want to get the article into shape for approval. Should I send a request to a mathematics editor to update the "ToApprove" metadata?

Update: I have left a message on Jitse Niesen's talk page asking him to move the article to "ToApprove" status.

Question: The approval process at CZ is pretty confusing. I just noticed there is a list of articles that someone has deemed ready for approval. Why there is such a list separate from the developed article list is beyond my powers of understanding. However, given it exists, I would like to add the Associated Legendre Functions article to that list. Do you have any objections? Dan Nessett 23:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I might (or WE might) have a 5,000-word developed article about, say, Bill Tilden, well-written and well-organized. If *that* isn't "developed", what is? BUT, it may not be ready for approval because it still lacks some major elements, there are controversies about some aspects of it, or some other reasons. And there may be a short article about Ray Casey that *is* ready for approval (at least in MY opinion, since I'm the one who placed it in that category) because it has all the qualities of the Tilden article BUT ALSO there is nothing more to say about the subject. It's done, finished. That's all, folks! So, at least in MY mind, there can be a clear distinction between "developed" and "ready for approval". Hayford Peirce 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hayford. So, who decides that an article is both "developed" and "ready for approval"? Also, since Paul was the person who did most (>99%) of the work on the main article, I still seek his view on moving the article to the the "ready for approval" list. Dan Nessett 01:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan, CZ:Ready for approval contains this sentence: "Any user, author or editor, may add an article to the list below but an editor from the relevant workgroup(s) may remove an article if it is deemed unready for the attention of approving editors." That makes it very clear that you, or any other author or editor, can simply place Associated Legendre function in that list. I have done that with many of articles that I created ... but only when they have a Status of 1 (Developed) in their Metadata templates. Associated Legendre function has a Status of 1 in the Metadata template, so there is no reason why you or Paul cannot place it in CZ:Ready for approval. That doesn't guarantee it will be approved ... it just alerts editors that it is considered to be ready for approval. Also, even if it is subsequently nominated for approval by an editor or editors, another editor in the relevant workgroup(s) can object to the nomination or, indeed, stop the nomination process. Milton Beychok 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Milton. I realize that placing the article on the Ready for Approval list guarantees nothing. The article still has to go through review by the editor or editors. I just want to put it on the list so there is nothing on the author's side of the equation that is left undone. Since Paul wrote most of the article (I and a collaborator wrote most of the proof on the Proof's sub-page) I still would like to get Paul's view on the question. He is in a better position to determine whether the main article is ready or not. I would feel uncomfortable putting it on the list without his agreement. Dan Nessett 04:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Dan, I did not intend to leave the impression that you should leave Paul out of the loop. I was only trying to answer your question of: So, who decides that an article is both "developed" and "ready for approval"? In any event, it seems that all is clear now. Milton Beychok 08:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul. I am having trouble understanding why you haven't responded to my question whether you have any objections to adding the Associated Legendre Functions article to the "Ready for Approval" list. Do you think the article isn't ready for approval? If so, would you describe the problems that need to be solved so I can work on them? If you think it is ready for approval, would you either put it on the list or let me know and I will do that? Thanks. Dan Nessett 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan, there is not much that we can do, we have to wait until Jitse reacts.
Another thing, maybe you don't know that TeX and LaTeX traditionally have two modes for math: a display mode and an in-line mode. The non-Wiki TeX/LaTeX has different directives for this distinction. Most (longer) math formulas belong in display mode, which means that they are in an otherwise empty block of the screen, without text. Only very brief formulas ought to be in-line and only very small pieces of text appear in display mode. You do not separate the two modes, which to me is not very elegant. If you don't mind, I can format your proof page somewhat.--Paul Wormer 16:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. Please fell free to format the formulas in the proof so their appearance is improved. Shall I add the article to the "ready for approval" list? Dan Nessett 16:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes you can do that. Tomorrow I will do the formating. Yet one more thing: we usually indent on talk pages until it gets out of hand, then we either start a new thread or write "unindent". This makes it easier for others to see who said what.--Paul Wormer 17:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. Dan Nessett 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Unless, of course, you belong to a fairly adamant minority who insist that there's some academic method of NOT using indents. The CZ rules aren't 100% clear about which is preferable, so I've given up insisting on the indention rules. Mostly.... Hayford Peirce 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In regards to indentation style, I'm easy. I prefer an indent per Citizen, so the Citizen that begins the discussion is always non-indented, the first Citizen to reply is always indented by one, etc. That allows one to keep track of who is saying what. But, like I said I really have no hard preference. Dan Nessett 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hayford, click on the Edit tab above and read the blue banner at the top. Seems to me thatit clearly spells out what CZ prefers ... and it was discussed thoroughly on the Forums before Chris Day created that banner. Milton Beychok 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
For pity's sake, Milton, I *know* what it says! And I *know* that we *almost* all agreed to it. BUT the CZ style manual, or guidelines, or whatnot *also* has some weasel words about the academic method -- which *some* people still insist on using. And still they still argue about it -- see Tom Morris, for instance. So even though *most* of us agree to use the indents, it's not 100%, mainly because the nice blue box at the top of the page is just something that some of us cobbled together -- it's not 100% official. So, as I've said, I've given up arguing with the absolutely adamant opponents about it. Hayford Peirce 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent]

Paul. We are getting no response from Jitse. It appears Peter Schmitt is once again responding to CZ matters. Shall I ask him to review the article for approval? Dan Nessett 19:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul. I can't remember where you asked me if I could come up with a proof for the second orthogonality relation, so I am leaving this here. As I stated, I asked a former colleague (a theoretical physicist by training) if he would take a crack at it. I just received his response. He has company this weekend, but said he would give it a shot next week. Since he doesn't know and so far has no interest in learning mediawiki markup, anything he creates will be in MS Word. I will then have to translate it into MW markup. I will let you know if and when we have something. Dan Nessett 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Paul. You are probably monitoring the Associated Legendre Functions cluster, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to mention here that I have added the proof to the 2nd and 3rd equations in the Orthogonality relations section and slightly adjusted the text in the main article to reflect that. Dan Nessett 16:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

## Genethlialogy

I just asked my sister the astrology guru about this baloney and contrary to what she had told me months ago, she doesn't know anything about it. I have checked WP on this, and they have a *huge* article about it. Since none of us have any interest at all in it as far as I can tell, I suggest that we simply delete this one as being "unmaintainable". Since you're the author who originally created it and put in most of the content, you have the right, according to Matt the other Kop, to ask that it be deleted. If you formally ask me to delete it, therefore, I will....

Best, Hayford Peirce 18:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but something about the name Genethlialogy intrigued me. Not that I would argue against deleting the article as unmaintainable, but there appears to be material on this topic elsewhere. For example, the Encyclo On-line Encyclopedia has a definition (http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Genethlialogy) - casting (I assume a horoscope) for one newly born. The Encyclopedia Britannica appears to have information about it (although it appears to be a couple of sentences inside an article on another topic - Astrology?). Perhaps whatever has already been written about this topic could be merged into the Astrology article? Dan Nessett 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it could be merged if someone wanted to do it. What I was saying above is that this is a very short article written by people who have no real interest in it, or knowledge, and that, given its length, there's no particular reason to keep it. Hayford Peirce 06:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hayford, you always say that you are an inclusionist, why would you delete the article? It gives some correct info, doesn't it? When I met the word (in a book by E.J. Dijksterhuis that has been translated into English, German, and French; Dijksterhuis uses the term on p. 170 of the Dutch edition in a chapter on astrology in the medieval Islamic culture) I did not know what genethlialogy meant. The article gives enough info to read Dijksterhuis' chapter. And what is there to maintain, are there any developments in the field? If there are any, I don't think that we fail terribly if we do not immediately report on them.--Paul Wormer 08:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Paul, sorry, I didn't see your comment until just now. As you say, I *am* an inclusionist. I thought that you were the person who originally said it might be deleted.... In any case, the reason I thought this *might* be deleted is that it's such a barebones article as compared to the *very* lengthy WP article -- it gives so little information that I thought it looked bad by comparison. If we had a couple of Howards working on it fulltime, my opinion would be different but its existence seems to be met by total ennui. On the other hand, an astrology *may* come along tomorrow and want to expand it, so let's let it stand! Hayford Peirce 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

## Suggested revision of lead-in sentence for Clausius-Clapeyron relation

Paul, please take a look the Talk page of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation article. Milton Beychok 15:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

## Natural gas

Hi, Paul, just want to let you know that I have started work on Natural Gas as promised. After I ported it from WP:

• I deleted sections I thought just did not belong in the article such as the sections on biogas, town gas and gas pricing (which changes almost on a daily basis).
• I added new sections on gas composition, geological formation, exploration for new gas reservoirs and extraction (i.e., drilling and production)... all of which were not included in the WP article.
• I extracted parts of the WP article and reassembled them into a new section on "Measurement units and heating values".
• I completely reformatted the order of the various new and existing sections in what I think is a more logical sequence.
• Whenever I see something I don't understand because of my limited knowledge of gas exploration and extraction or that I cannot independently verify, I delete it rather than take any chances that it might be incorrect. Some experienced petroleuom geologist may come along sooner or later and add more content that he/she feels is needed.

I would estimate that I am now about 50% complete. I still have 2-3 excessively lengthy sections of the WP article that I want to trim down drastically. I also have quite a bit of rewording in mind as well.

When I have it ready to load into the article mainspace, I will contact you to see if you want to review and comment on it before I load it as a new article. Milton Beychok 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

## This is how to create ℓ

Paul, I created this ℓ by using this HTML character entity: & #8467;   (but without the space between & and #). Milton Beychok 07:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Milt, I discovered that too in the meantime. But the question is: how to get the symbol directly, without HTML code. If you look into the source of this message you see and no code. --Paul Wormer 08:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
PS By copy paste of the representation of & #8467; (without space) I got ℓ. Thus, a bootstrapping procedure is possible, create the symbol once by the code, then preview and copy paste it. That is probably how the guy at WP does it. --Paul Wormer 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why copy and paste?? Why not just enter the HTML code each time on the edit page? It won't show on the article page, which is what is important ... is it not? When would you want to get it directly? I have a sandbox that I call my storage box where I keep a lot of links and other stuff I want to be able to use at any time. I guess I could create this character and keep it there ... but retrieving it would take more time than just using the HTML code. Milton Beychok 08:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Because your source looks better. Compare ℓ(ℓ+1)ℏ2 with ℓ(ℓ+1)ℏ2. (Look at the source, not at the output!). --Paul Wormer 08:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, now I understand what you wanted. Milton Beychok 19:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

## Natural gas article

Paul, I have completed the Natural gas article (in my sandbox)). If you want to review and suggest changes, I will wait a few days to hear from you before I move it into the main article namespace. My sandbox is at User:Milton_Beychok/Sandbox. Regards, Milton Beychok 22:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, as you may have noticed, David Volk nominated Natural gas for approval. Would you care to add your name to the approval? Milton Beychok 16:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

## About your review of the "Natural gas" article in my sandbox

Many thanks, Paul. I re-worded your first item. As for your second item, I don't know how that discussion of retrograde condensation got repeated. I just deleted it entirely from the natural gas reserves section.

When I load it into the namespace, I will list Engineering and Chemistry as the workgroup categories. I will do that after I get comments that I asked for from a new Engineering editor named Karl D. Schubert.

Milton Beychok 16:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I went ahead and moved Natural gas into the article namespace. I've notifed Karl D. Schubert where to find it. Milton Beychok 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

## homeopathy reapproval

Since the homeopathy article is listed in the chemistry workgroup as well as health sciences and healing arts, you are eligible to join Matt in approval. Are you comfortable with the current draft? Thanks much. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 01:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

## Just completed an article on petroleum crude oil

Paul, I just finished an article on petroleum crude oil in my sandbox at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox. Feel free to comment on its Talk page. I have not yet run it through a spell checker, so there are probably spelling errors. I will probably load it into the article namespace tomorrow afternoon/evening. Milton Beychok 08:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

## Thanks

Paul, I just uploaded FireFox and, so far, I like it very much. Thanks for helping me with that. Milton Beychok 06:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I note that you have not made any contributions to the Thermodynamics article, which surprizes me since that ought to be right down your alley. It would be nice if we could get that article to the approval stage. Would you please review it and revise it as necessary? Does it need a section on non-equilibrium thermodynamics?

Also, the article links to Laws of Thermodynamics ... but when I go to Laws of Thermodynamics, I find an almost useless stub of an article. Is the "Laws of thermodynamics" section of Thermodynamics inclusive enough for me to ask for speedy deletion of the Laws of Thermodynamics stub? Milton Beychok 17:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul, just a gentle repeat of my request that you review the Thermodynamics article, please. Also, I crossed out the second part of my above post in this thread, because I have now taken care of that item as suggested by Daniel Mietchen on the Talk:Thermodynamics. Regards, Milton Beychok 21:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Milt, the thermodynamics article is written in a way that I personally wouldn't write it (order of sections, presentation of second law, jokes that I don't understand, etc.). If I started to work on the article I wouldn't be able to resist making a major overhaul and I don't want to do that, especially since I'm far from an expert on classical thermodynamics (I failed only twice for an exam in my life, one was my driver's license test—in Europe it is non-trivial—and the second was my classical-thermo exam in 1964—in both cases I passed second time around though). Further, I don't know anything about non-equilibrium thermo. On the other hand, my knowledge of equilibrium statistical thermodynamics is OK.--Paul Wormer 14:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks anyway,Paul. If you should change your mind, your comments or overhaul would be welcome and deleting the jokes would not bother me at all. My only interest in this article is that we need a good thermo article and I don't believe that this Thermodynamics import from Wikipedia has ever been thoroughly reworked. Milton Beychok 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

## Are you willing to act as editor on the Sturm-Liouville article?

Paul. I have attempted to work with Peter Schmitt on moving the Sturm-Liouville article towards approval. He has stated that he cannot assure me that he would ever approve it no matter how it is changed, since it contains material that was originally sourced at WP. I asked him if he would mind if I attempted to find a different editor to work with on the article. His answer was somewhat vague, so I sought clarification. However, I have been instructed by Hayford Pierce in his role as constable that if I continue to press Peter on the issue I run the risk of being cited for unprofessional behavior.

Consequently, I am asking whether you would work with me on this article. I see you have made a number of minor stylistic edits to the article. I am not sure whether these constitute enough changes so that you cannot act as editor. The changes were small enough that I could easily back them out (after asking the constables if that is allowed) and make them myself. The reason I am asking you is we worked together on the Associated Legendre functions article and you have stated that you have never turned down a request to work with an author to improve an article so it is approvable.

If you are concerned that this work is tainted by the friction between Peter and I on the article, feel free to read the record of our interactions on his talk page. Dan Nessett 23:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I'm not a mathematics editor, but I saw that you attached physics as a category, so I had a quick look.
What interests me a lot is why the S-L eigenfunctions are complete. I looked at the section "Sturm–Liouville equations as self-adjoint differential operators" where its discussed that it is a consequence of the resolvent of L being compact due to the Arzelà–Ascoli theorem. I must admit that I had never heard of this theorem and I only have a vague notion of what a compact operator may be (I know what a bounded operator is and a compact operator much be close to it). This section also states the well-known fact that eigenfunctions of the self-adjoint operator L are orthogonal. Given the level of the article such a statement seems sufficient to me, your proof of orthogonality does not add much for a reader who can understand the article.
I checked the book by Margenau & Murphy. They give a fairly low-brow proof of the completeness, at least one that I can understand it. Would it no be better if we had a proof like that?
In short, the subject is of such high level that either a mathematical physicist (which I am not) or a mathematician should have a look at it. An alternative is that we lower its mathematical level.
--Paul Wormer 16:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Paul. It is refreshing to receive direction that is both professional and obviously concerned about the problem at hand, i.e., improving the article so it is approvable. That said, I am unfortunately unable to pursue the course you set out, since I am not an expert in functional analysis and my understanding of operator compactness is less than yours. Furthermore, I do not have access to Margenau & Murphy, so I can't look at their proof of completeness. I think this example demonstrates that I am not an appropriate author in the area of this article. I have received a response from John Fletcher and he has decided to refrain from contributing a new article on S-L theory. So, it looks like this article will remain dormant until someone comes along with more expertise than I have in the subject. By the way, the proof of orthogonality is his, not mine.
Since my areas of expertise are networks and distributed systems and since there are reasons I choose not to work on articles in the computers and engineering workgroups, I think the only way I have to contribute to CZ at the moment is to help improve its software, fixing some bugs and perhaps working on the core software so that the modifications specific to CZ are factored into an extension. That is where I intend to work for the foreseeable future.
P.S. Here is an ironic fact. If you Google "Sturm-Liouville theory orthogonality", the third hit on the list is the WP article and indented beneath it is a reference to John's orthogonality proof, which I left in my User space on WP. So, those searching for an orthogonality proof of S-L solutions will find it as the 6th reference on the Google list. Dan Nessett 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

## Chemical elements

Paul, what is your opinion on this forum topic? (Discovered by Hayford in Special:DeadendPages.) Peter Schmitt 18:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

## Wasted a few hours and my face is red!

I spent a few hours creating a drawing of a Carnot heat engine and finding/uploading a photo of Josiah Willard Gibbs and placing both of them in the Thermodynamics article. Some time later, I found that you had already created a drawing of a Carnot heat engine for the Energy article and mine is almost identical to yours ... and I also found that someone had already uploaded the same photo of Gibbs into Chemical thermodynamics. I could have saved myself a few hours of effort if I had only searched CZ a little better. Ah, well! Milton Beychok 01:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

## The Second law of thermodynamics

Paul, as you requested, I have reviewed the Second law of thermodynamics article to the best of my ability. Most of my changes, if not all, are just very minor rewording and copy editing. I have also raised a few more substantive questions on the article's Talk page that you should consider. I apologize for not having done more. Milton Beychok 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

## Template for chemistry

Paul, could you look at User talk:Milton Beychok#Properties and User talk:Milton Beychok#Property list. I have tried to provide a template requested on CZ:Wishlist. Peter Schmitt 13:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fond of these things. It is lots of work to collect the data, and it is not clear how reliable they are (and in some cases what they mean). Information can be contradictory. For instance, I saw an oxygen atom template (which I cannot find any longer) that says that oxygen is a gas with molecular weight close to 16. This is wrong, but understandably wrong, because these templates force you to make these sorts of errors. In this case the template forces the user to switch back and forth between molecular oxygen O2 and elemental oxygen O and it forces decisions on the user that may be questionable.--Paul Wormer 14:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The template was not my idea. It is supposed to replace the existing construction using a subpage for each entry.
Your reservations are, at least partially, taken care by the template: Without specifying compound or atom it can be used without any predefined entries. For the case, where such an option is used, comments would be useful
What data are so important that the entry should be provided as "required" default? Which entries should be offered as "optional"? Remarks like your comment that molecular and atomic mass are easily mixed up, is also important.
Peter Schmitt 12:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

## The Book of God and Physics (A novel of the Voynich mystery)

Paul, I am reading a book entitled "The Book of God and Physics" written by a Spanish physicist named Enrique Joven that has been translated into English. It is about the an ancient book called the "Voynich Manuscript".

I think you might enjoy it because it has a good bit of history dating back to the days of Kepler and Tycho Brahe.

Have you heard of this book? Milton Beychok 06:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No Milt, I haven't heard of the Voynich mystery nor of Joven. Is the book worth buying? --Paul Wormer 08:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The book sells here for US$26 ... but the copy I am reading came from our public library. Perhaps a library near you may have a copy. I don't think I would spend$25 buying it. But it is quite interesting and you seem to have a passion for historical physics. Milton Beychok 08:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that our public library will have it. I live in a small village, and our library has hardly any books in English. You're right that I'm interested in the history of science, many of my articles have a history section. I don't think such sections hurt, somebody who doesn't share my interest can easily skip them (assuming that somebody reads my articles, which I seriously doubt. But who knows, maybe somebody will read some of them sometime in the future).--Paul Wormer 08:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The Voynich manuscript isn't ancient, it's 17th century. Last I heard it was still undeciphered, though. Peter Jackson 11:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Peter, as I learned when I worked in London for 6 years or so, 300 years is not ancient at all for Europeans ... but, for Americans like me, 300 years is almost pre-historic. Milton Beychok 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Paul, give me your postal mailing address and I'll send you a copy of the book. Milton Beychok 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## Boltzmann

If it is not urgent then it is no problem. To get a good picture I would like to wait for nice weather with good light, and this has to coincide with a time when I can go there. (The Zentralfriedhof is on the other side of the town where I rarely am.) Now, in autumn/winter good light may be rare. Peter Schmitt 12:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

## Herman Van Rompuy

Hi Paul, I do not see why you redirect from Herman Van Rompuy to Van Rompuy — I would do it the other way round. --Daniel Mietchen 10:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That is because I made the mistake by starting out with Van Rompuy and I'm too lazy to move it. --Paul Wormer 10:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## Element subpages

Hi Paul, such mass deletions can be done by a bot if you can wait until they are allowed to run again. --Daniel Mietchen 15:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, consider that the information itself is useful, the format is the problem. A bot might be able to reconfigurate that information, assuming we have a plan for what to do with it? Chris Day 20:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

## Complex numbers

Paul, please have a look at Talk:Complex number/Draft#correcting approved version. Can you help? I will not mind if you make the 1/z passage a little more explicit, too. Peter Schmitt 01:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-approval of Version 2.1 completed. Thanks for your participation! D. Matt Innis 15:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Paul, I replied to you (delayed) on my talk page. Best wishes! Peter Schmitt 15:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

## a Dutch professor

Hi, Paul,

Sorry about confusing the NL and Belgium -- I was drinking my morning coffee! Now there's a prof at a NL university named Paul de Laat who has emailed saying that his *two* applications have never been attended to. As far as *I* can tell, we never received an application. Do you know anything about him? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I googled Paul de Laat and he seems to be a genuine philosopher working at the University of Groningen, a well-known university. I don't know him. --Paul Wormer 16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he says that he is Paul B. de Laat, Faculteit Filosofie, Universiteit Groningen, NL and has applied twice in the last two months with no response at all. I find no records of his applications. Geez. Hayford Peirce 16:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I am corresponding with him through the Constabulary email and have asked him to reapply -- I'll be keeping a beady eye on the process this time! Hayford Peirce 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
We finally got him registered as an Author -- he wasn't filling out 50 words in the bio space. BUT apparently he also wasn't getting a warning saying that he hadn't done so. I'll check this out and see if there's a bug in the system. Hayford Peirce 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

## Need your comment LaTex equation in Molar volume

Paul, I just created a new article called Molar volume. It includes this equation

${\displaystyle V_{\rm {m}}={\frac {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{N}x_{i}M_{i}}{\rho _{mixture}}}}$

Should it be corrected to:\this?

${\displaystyle V_{\rm {m}}={\frac {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{N}x_{i}M_{i}}{\rho _{\rm {mixture}}}}}$

In general, what are the rules for when to use italics and when to use non-italics?

Thanks in advance. Milton Beychok 03:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Milt, definitely the second, but I would use \mathrm{mixture}. (I forgot the difference between \rm and \mathrm but somehow I remember that \mathrm works better). According to the AIP style manual, words (like: total, in, out, mixture, etc.) in math must be roman also when used as sub- or superscripts. Also in roman must be: chemical symbols (O, Ne), units (Hz, J), and mathematical functions: cos, exp, etc. Personally I would write "mixt" instead of "mixture" in equations. --Paul Wormer 06:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
May I drop in? It should be \text (and I think that \textstyle looks better)
${\displaystyle V_{\rm {m}}={\frac {\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{N}x_{i}M_{i}}{\rho _{\text{mixture}}}}}$
The reason for \text (\textrm is not scriptstyle): There is a difference between the spacing of math fonts and of text fonts reflecting the fact that -- in math mode -- single letters represent variables while in text they are combined to words.
${\displaystyle diff\qquad {\textit {diff}}}$
Therefore, if italics, it should be \textit. But, moreover, "mixt(ure)" should be Roman, not Italics, because it is not the name of a variable (cf. "\log" and "log"). This is often not considered in books and journals when authors are not advised by (competent) editors.
\rm provides \mathrm, I think (needs checking), but does not take an argument, i.e. {\rm text} and \mathrm [text} are equivalent, I suppose. Curiously, \mathrm and \textrm show no difference:
${\displaystyle \mathrm {diff} \qquad {\textrm {diff}}\qquad {\rm {diff}}}$
I shall have to try this off-wiki --Peter Schmitt 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

## Edward Teller

Paul, what is lacking with Edward Teller that we would prevent it from being approved? Russell D. Jones 01:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not much, maybe a few more references? On the other hand, as I stated several times on the Forum, once it is approved, it is hard to change it. And who knows, you or I may read something interesting in the future that then will be hard to add. --Paul Wormer 13:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Another thing: WP has a section about Teller and the Israel A- and H-bombs. Teller doesn't say anything about this in his Memoirs. The WP section is based on one book only (that I haven't seen and I don't know its trustworthiness). Since the fact whether or not Israel possesses nuclear weapons is formally top-secret, I decided not to chase after that book and to skip the topic altogether. Any opinion anyone? --Paul Wormer 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul, Meg Ireland just corrected the spelling of one word in Amine gas treating/Draft. Since you never worked on that article and since you are a Chemistry editor, would you please nominate the article for single-editor re-approval so that the spelling will be corrected in the approved version? Thanks, Milton Beychok 06:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium Getting Started
Join | Quick Start | About us | Help system | The Author Role | The Editor Role
Essentials | How to start a new article | For Wikipedians | Other
Home Welcome Page

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Aleksander Stos 12:32, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

## Scientific method

Hi Paul, please take a quick look at Scientific method and make sure you are satisfied with the changes since July 21 and we will be good to go. Thanks, D. Matt Innis 12:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

## Anthony.Sebastian approves 24-Jul-2009 version Scientific method

First class article. Anthony.Sebastian 17:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

## Are changes I made sandbox version 'chemical elements' okay

Paul,

I believe I responded to your suggested changes my sandbox version of 'chemical elements'. If you're okay with that version as a working version for continued collaborative development, please indicate so on: http://en.citizendium.org:8080/wiki/Talk:Chemical_elements#Lede_revised_in_response_to_Paul_and_Peter.

If Peter does the same, I will get Milton's okay to replace the current Main Article with it.

Thanks. Anthony.Sebastian 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

## I have enemies everywhere!

Thanks, Paul, I hadn't bothered to look at that place for a couple of month now. Wonder who these characters are and why they're so agin me? I musta been arrogant to the wrong person somewhere along the line, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 14:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A riposte that may or may not amuse you.... [2] Hayford Peirce 05:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

## Article on Sturm-Liouville theory

Hello Paul,

Sometime back I proposed moving the WP article on Sturm-Liouville theory to CZ and adding a proof of the orthogonality of solutions with distinct eigenvalues. Since I am not an expert on S-L theory, I consulted with a collaborator who is knowledgeable about this topic and asked him if he would be willing to work on the WP article to improve it. After looking the article over, he said he had no suggestions for improving it, except perhaps by removing the reference to "the Arzela-Ascoli theorem and the spectral theory for compact operators." He thought this parenthetical comment was not in keeping with the direction of the rest of the article.

So, here is what I propose to do. I will move the WP S-L article to CZ, ticking the appropriate check-box indicating the WP source. If you agree, I will remove the reference to "the Arzela-Ascoli theorem and the spectral theory for compact operators." I will then create an addendum page on which to place the orthogonality proof and put a link in the main article to it. Let me know if this is an acceptable strategy. Dan Nessett 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds perfect. But please note that I'm not a mathematics editor, only an author. (I'm physics and chemistry editor). So, I'm interested in the stuff and know a little about it, but have no formal say in things mathematical.--Paul Wormer 16:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Should I contact a mathematics editor before proceeding? If so, do you know of one that might specialize in the area of this topic? Dan Nessett 17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for "butting in", but try Peter Schmitt who is a professor of mathematics in the University of Vienna and who is quite active in CZ. Milton Beychok 18:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that. Dan Nessett 18:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

## Dutch military history?

What would be a good name for a top-level article about Dutch military and naval history? I'm thinking here mostly for something to use as a parent topic in Related Articles pages, but filling out the Related Pages at the top level would be useful.

More modern events that could go under it include Cruiser#Battle of the Java Strait and Operation MARKET-GARDEN. The Dutch Marines have also done some impressive hostage rescues. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Howard, the Dutch do not have much of a military history. There is almost only the 17th century naval history. For instance, in Market Garden (not capitalized, I know your point of view but I can't bring myself to follow you) there were British, American and (oddly enough) Polish forces involved, no Dutch.--Paul Wormer 07:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

## Please comment on Earth's atmosphere

Paul, Earth's atmosphere is my first venture outside my field of expertise. I would appreciate any comments you may offer (on the article's Talk page). Milton Beychok 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

## Added acknowledgement to Earth's atmosphere about Equation 2 and Boltzmann distribution

Paul, I have added a footnote (reference 13) acknowledging that Equation 2 can be obtained from the Boltzmann distribution and linked it to the article you wrote on the Boltzmann distribution. Milton Beychok 16:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. I am not sure how your Barometric formula article would interfere with the Atmospheric lapse rate article I am writing. You can see my article in progress at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox and judge for yourself. I am about 75% finished with it. I might even finish it today. As I said above, I am no expert on atmospheric science or meteorology ... I just thought the Earth's atmosphere and Atmospheric lapse rate articles were needed to fit in with my air pollution dispersion modeling articles ... so I wrote them. Milton Beychok 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

## Garnet

Thanks Paul!

I took a recent family trip down to Montana, Garnet was one of the places I got to visit and I was completely amazed by what I saw, it really left a lasting impression on me which compelled me to create/work on the Citizendium article. Thanks again! --Mehar Gill 17:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

## Atmospheric lapse rate finished and created

Hi, Paul. Atmospheric lapse rate has been created if you want to see it. I decided to name it "Atmospheric lapse rate" because there are so many different lapses ... lapsed insurance, memory lapses, lapsed into a coma, lapse of eligibility, etc., etc. ... and I didn't want to use "Lapse rate (atmospheric)". Milton Beychok 04:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

## What do you think of the Universe article?

Paul, have you ever read the Universe article? What do you think of it? Milton Beychok 23:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it and see nothing wrong with it; but I don't know much about cosmology. It would probably need the hand of a professional cosmologist to bring it to an approvable state, but for a level 2 article (a little bit more than a stub) it seems acceptable to me. Why do you ask this, did you find any errors?--Paul Wormer 06:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No, just curious. Milton Beychok 06:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

## Moving the Associated Legendre Functions article toward approved status

Hi Paul. I would like to get the work done that will allow us to move the Associated Legendre Functions article to approved status. I notice that you have reinserted the inline reference to Edmonds. So the first thing to sort out is what are the rules for citations. The Edmonds citation is now in both the main article and the Bibliography. Do we leave it twice cited? Should we remove it from the Bibliography and leave it in the main article? Should we remove it from the main article and add a footnote that says something like "see reference 1 in the Bibliography"? Or something else. The other issue I see is the dead link to "potential theory". Should we leave this alone or should one of us import the WP article to CZ? Dan Nessett 15:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I answered about the inline references on the forum. I feel that CZ cannot do without footnotes and that those must be easily accessible, hence on the main page. I don't mind that some references are cited twice. As long as there are no hundreds of duplicates, it is not important. I expressed my opinion about dead (red) links on the forum: leave them as they are, a red link will spur somebody someday to write the article. (For instance today I wrote Euclidean space because I noticed a red link).--Paul Wormer 15:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions on the "where references should go" issue. I just want to get the article into shape for approval. Should I send a request to a mathematics editor to update the "ToApprove" metadata?

Update: I have left a message on Jitse Niesen's talk page asking him to move the article to "ToApprove" status.

Question: The approval process at CZ is pretty confusing. I just noticed there is a list of articles that someone has deemed ready for approval. Why there is such a list separate from the developed article list is beyond my powers of understanding. However, given it exists, I would like to add the Associated Legendre Functions article to that list. Do you have any objections? Dan Nessett 23:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I might (or WE might) have a 5,000-word developed article about, say, Bill Tilden, well-written and well-organized. If *that* isn't "developed", what is? BUT, it may not be ready for approval because it still lacks some major elements, there are controversies about some aspects of it, or some other reasons. And there may be a short article about Ray Casey that *is* ready for approval (at least in MY opinion, since I'm the one who placed it in that category) because it has all the qualities of the Tilden article BUT ALSO there is nothing more to say about the subject. It's done, finished. That's all, folks! So, at least in MY mind, there can be a clear distinction between "developed" and "ready for approval". Hayford Peirce 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hayford. So, who decides that an article is both "developed" and "ready for approval"? Also, since Paul was the person who did most (>99%) of the work on the main article, I still seek his view on moving the article to the the "ready for approval" list. Dan Nessett 01:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan, CZ:Ready for approval contains this sentence: "Any user, author or editor, may add an article to the list below but an editor from the relevant workgroup(s) may remove an article if it is deemed unready for the attention of approving editors." That makes it very clear that you, or any other author or editor, can simply place Associated Legendre function in that list. I have done that with many of articles that I created ... but only when they have a Status of 1 (Developed) in their Metadata templates. Associated Legendre function has a Status of 1 in the Metadata template, so there is no reason why you or Paul cannot place it in CZ:Ready for approval. That doesn't guarantee it will be approved ... it just alerts editors that it is considered to be ready for approval. Also, even if it is subsequently nominated for approval by an editor or editors, another editor in the relevant workgroup(s) can object to the nomination or, indeed, stop the nomination process. Milton Beychok 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Milton. I realize that placing the article on the Ready for Approval list guarantees nothing. The article still has to go through review by the editor or editors. I just want to put it on the list so there is nothing on the author's side of the equation that is left undone. Since Paul wrote most of the article (I and a collaborator wrote most of the proof on the Proof's sub-page) I still would like to get Paul's view on the question. He is in a better position to determine whether the main article is ready or not. I would feel uncomfortable putting it on the list without his agreement. Dan Nessett 04:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Dan, I did not intend to leave the impression that you should leave Paul out of the loop. I was only trying to answer your question of: So, who decides that an article is both "developed" and "ready for approval"? In any event, it seems that all is clear now. Milton Beychok 08:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul. I am having trouble understanding why you haven't responded to my question whether you have any objections to adding the Associated Legendre Functions article to the "Ready for Approval" list. Do you think the article isn't ready for approval? If so, would you describe the problems that need to be solved so I can work on them? If you think it is ready for approval, would you either put it on the list or let me know and I will do that? Thanks. Dan Nessett 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan, there is not much that we can do, we have to wait until Jitse reacts.
Another thing, maybe you don't know that TeX and LaTeX traditionally have two modes for math: a display mode and an in-line mode. The non-Wiki TeX/LaTeX has different directives for this distinction. Most (longer) math formulas belong in display mode, which means that they are in an otherwise empty block of the screen, without text. Only very brief formulas ought to be in-line and only very small pieces of text appear in display mode. You do not separate the two modes, which to me is not very elegant. If you don't mind, I can format your proof page somewhat.--Paul Wormer 16:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. Please fell free to format the formulas in the proof so their appearance is improved. Shall I add the article to the "ready for approval" list? Dan Nessett 16:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes you can do that. Tomorrow I will do the formating. Yet one more thing: we usually indent on talk pages until it gets out of hand, then we either start a new thread or write "unindent". This makes it easier for others to see who said what.--Paul Wormer 17:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. Dan Nessett 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Unless, of course, you belong to a fairly adamant minority who insist that there's some academic method of NOT using indents. The CZ rules aren't 100% clear about which is preferable, so I've given up insisting on the indention rules. Mostly.... Hayford Peirce 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In regards to indentation style, I'm easy. I prefer an indent per Citizen, so the Citizen that begins the discussion is always non-indented, the first Citizen to reply is always indented by one, etc. That allows one to keep track of who is saying what. But, like I said I really have no hard preference. Dan Nessett 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hayford, click on the Edit tab above and read the blue banner at the top. Seems to me thatit clearly spells out what CZ prefers ... and it was discussed thoroughly on the Forums before Chris Day created that banner. Milton Beychok 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
For pity's sake, Milton, I *know* what it says! And I *know* that we *almost* all agreed to it. BUT the CZ style manual, or guidelines, or whatnot *also* has some weasel words about the academic method -- which *some* people still insist on using. And still they still argue about it -- see Tom Morris, for instance. So even though *most* of us agree to use the indents, it's not 100%, mainly because the nice blue box at the top of the page is just something that some of us cobbled together -- it's not 100% official. So, as I've said, I've given up arguing with the absolutely adamant opponents about it. Hayford Peirce 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent]

Paul. We are getting no response from Jitse. It appears Peter Schmitt is once again responding to CZ matters. Shall I ask him to review the article for approval? Dan Nessett 19:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul. I can't remember where you asked me if I could come up with a proof for the second orthogonality relation, so I am leaving this here. As I stated, I asked a former colleague (a theoretical physicist by training) if he would take a crack at it. I just received his response. He has company this weekend, but said he would give it a shot next week. Since he doesn't know and so far has no interest in learning mediawiki markup, anything he creates will be in MS Word. I will then have to translate it into MW markup. I will let you know if and when we have something. Dan Nessett 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Paul. You are probably monitoring the Associated Legendre Functions cluster, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to mention here that I have added the proof to the 2nd and 3rd equations in the Orthogonality relations section and slightly adjusted the text in the main article to reflect that. Dan Nessett 16:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

## Genethlialogy

I just asked my sister the astrology guru about this baloney and contrary to what she had told me months ago, she doesn't know anything about it. I have checked WP on this, and they have a *huge* article about it. Since none of us have any interest at all in it as far as I can tell, I suggest that we simply delete this one as being "unmaintainable". Since you're the author who originally created it and put in most of the content, you have the right, according to Matt the other Kop, to ask that it be deleted. If you formally ask me to delete it, therefore, I will....

Best, Hayford Peirce 18:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but something about the name Genethlialogy intrigued me. Not that I would argue against deleting the article as unmaintainable, but there appears to be material on this topic elsewhere. For example, the Encyclo On-line Encyclopedia has a definition (http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Genethlialogy) - casting (I assume a horoscope) for one newly born. The Encyclopedia Britannica appears to have information about it (although it appears to be a couple of sentences inside an article on another topic - Astrology?). Perhaps whatever has already been written about this topic could be merged into the Astrology article? Dan Nessett 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it could be merged if someone wanted to do it. What I was saying above is that this is a very short article written by people who have no real interest in it, or knowledge, and that, given its length, there's no particular reason to keep it. Hayford Peirce 06:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hayford, you always say that you are an inclusionist, why would you delete the article? It gives some correct info, doesn't it? When I met the word (in a book by E.J. Dijksterhuis that has been translated into English, German, and French; Dijksterhuis uses the term on p. 170 of the Dutch edition in a chapter on astrology in the medieval Islamic culture) I did not know what genethlialogy meant. The article gives enough info to read Dijksterhuis' chapter. And what is there to maintain, are there any developments in the field? If there are any, I don't think that we fail terribly if we do not immediately report on them.--Paul Wormer 08:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Paul, sorry, I didn't see your comment until just now. As you say, I *am* an inclusionist. I thought that you were the person who originally said it might be deleted.... In any case, the reason I thought this *might* be deleted is that it's such a barebones article as compared to the *very* lengthy WP article -- it gives so little information that I thought it looked bad by comparison. If we had a couple of Howards working on it fulltime, my opinion would be different but its existence seems to be met by total ennui. On the other hand, an astrology *may* come along tomorrow and want to expand it, so let's let it stand! Hayford Peirce 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

## Suggested revision of lead-in sentence for Clausius-Clapeyron relation

Paul, please take a look the Talk page of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation article. Milton Beychok 15:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

## Natural gas

Hi, Paul, just want to let you know that I have started work on Natural Gas as promised. After I ported it from WP:

• I deleted sections I thought just did not belong in the article such as the sections on biogas, town gas and gas pricing (which changes almost on a daily basis).
• I added new sections on gas composition, geological formation, exploration for new gas reservoirs and extraction (i.e., drilling and production)... all of which were not included in the WP article.
• I extracted parts of the WP article and reassembled them into a new section on "Measurement units and heating values".
• I completely reformatted the order of the various new and existing sections in what I think is a more logical sequence.
• Whenever I see something I don't understand because of my limited knowledge of gas exploration and extraction or that I cannot independently verify, I delete it rather than take any chances that it might be incorrect. Some experienced petroleuom geologist may come along sooner or later and add more content that he/she feels is needed.

I would estimate that I am now about 50% complete. I still have 2-3 excessively lengthy sections of the WP article that I want to trim down drastically. I also have quite a bit of rewording in mind as well.

When I have it ready to load into the article mainspace, I will contact you to see if you want to review and comment on it before I load it as a new article. Milton Beychok 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

## This is how to create ℓ

Paul, I created this ℓ by using this HTML character entity: & #8467;   (but without the space between & and #). Milton Beychok 07:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Milt, I discovered that too in the meantime. But the question is: how to get the symbol directly, without HTML code. If you look into the source of this message you see and no code. --Paul Wormer 08:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
PS By copy paste of the representation of & #8467; (without space) I got ℓ. Thus, a bootstrapping procedure is possible, create the symbol once by the code, then preview and copy paste it. That is probably how the guy at WP does it. --Paul Wormer 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why copy and paste?? Why not just enter the HTML code each time on the edit page? It won't show on the article page, which is what is important ... is it not? When would you want to get it directly? I have a sandbox that I call my storage box where I keep a lot of links and other stuff I want to be able to use at any time. I guess I could create this character and keep it there ... but retrieving it would take more time than just using the HTML code. Milton Beychok 08:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Because your source looks better. Compare ℓ(ℓ+1)ℏ2 with ℓ(ℓ+1)ℏ2. (Look at the source, not at the output!). --Paul Wormer 08:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, now I understand what you wanted. Milton Beychok 19:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

## Natural gas article

Paul, I have completed the Natural gas article (in my sandbox)). If you want to review and suggest changes, I will wait a few days to hear from you before I move it into the main article namespace. My sandbox is at User:Milton_Beychok/Sandbox. Regards, Milton Beychok 22:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, as you may have noticed, David Volk nominated Natural gas for approval. Would you care to add your name to the approval? Milton Beychok 16:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

## About your review of the "Natural gas" article in my sandbox

Many thanks, Paul. I re-worded your first item. As for your second item, I don't know how that discussion of retrograde condensation got repeated. I just deleted it entirely from the natural gas reserves section.

When I load it into the namespace, I will list Engineering and Chemistry as the workgroup categories. I will do that after I get comments that I asked for from a new Engineering editor named Karl D. Schubert.

Milton Beychok 16:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I went ahead and moved Natural gas into the article namespace. I've notifed Karl D. Schubert where to find it. Milton Beychok 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

## homeopathy reapproval

Since the homeopathy article is listed in the chemistry workgroup as well as health sciences and healing arts, you are eligible to join Matt in approval. Are you comfortable with the current draft? Thanks much. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 01:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

## Just completed an article on petroleum crude oil

Paul, I just finished an article on petroleum crude oil in my sandbox at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox. Feel free to comment on its Talk page. I have not yet run it through a spell checker, so there are probably spelling errors. I will probably load it into the article namespace tomorrow afternoon/evening. Milton Beychok 08:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

## Thanks

Paul, I just uploaded FireFox and, so far, I like it very much. Thanks for helping me with that. Milton Beychok 06:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I note that you have not made any contributions to the Thermodynamics article, which surprizes me since that ought to be right down your alley. It would be nice if we could get that article to the approval stage. Would you please review it and revise it as necessary? Does it need a section on non-equilibrium thermodynamics?

Also, the article links to Laws of Thermodynamics ... but when I go to Laws of Thermodynamics, I find an almost useless stub of an article. Is the "Laws of thermodynamics" section of Thermodynamics inclusive enough for me to ask for speedy deletion of the Laws of Thermodynamics stub? Milton Beychok 17:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul, just a gentle repeat of my request that you review the Thermodynamics article, please. Also, I crossed out the second part of my above post in this thread, because I have now taken care of that item as suggested by Daniel Mietchen on the Talk:Thermodynamics. Regards, Milton Beychok 21:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Milt, the thermodynamics article is written in a way that I personally wouldn't write it (order of sections, presentation of second law, jokes that I don't understand, etc.). If I started to work on the article I wouldn't be able to resist making a major overhaul and I don't want to do that, especially since I'm far from an expert on classical thermodynamics (I failed only twice for an exam in my life, one was my driver's license test—in Europe it is non-trivial—and the second was my classical-thermo exam in 1964—in both cases I passed second time around though). Further, I don't know anything about non-equilibrium thermo. On the other hand, my knowledge of equilibrium statistical thermodynamics is OK.--Paul Wormer 14:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks anyway,Paul. If you should change your mind, your comments or overhaul would be welcome and deleting the jokes would not bother me at all. My only interest in this article is that we need a good thermo article and I don't believe that this Thermodynamics import from Wikipedia has ever been thoroughly reworked. Milton Beychok 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

## Are you willing to act as editor on the Sturm-Liouville article?

Paul. I have attempted to work with Peter Schmitt on moving the Sturm-Liouville article towards approval. He has stated that he cannot assure me that he would ever approve it no matter how it is changed, since it contains material that was originally sourced at WP. I asked him if he would mind if I attempted to find a different editor to work with on the article. His answer was somewhat vague, so I sought clarification. However, I have been instructed by Hayford Pierce in his role as constable that if I continue to press Peter on the issue I run the risk of being cited for unprofessional behavior.

Consequently, I am asking whether you would work with me on this article. I see you have made a number of minor stylistic edits to the article. I am not sure whether these constitute enough changes so that you cannot act as editor. The changes were small enough that I could easily back them out (after asking the constables if that is allowed) and make them myself. The reason I am asking you is we worked together on the Associated Legendre functions article and you have stated that you have never turned down a request to work with an author to improve an article so it is approvable.

If you are concerned that this work is tainted by the friction between Peter and I on the article, feel free to read the record of our interactions on his talk page. Dan Nessett 23:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I'm not a mathematics editor, but I saw that you attached physics as a category, so I had a quick look.
What interests me a lot is why the S-L eigenfunctions are complete. I looked at the section "Sturm–Liouville equations as self-adjoint differential operators" where its discussed that it is a consequence of the resolvent of L being compact due to the Arzelà–Ascoli theorem. I must admit that I had never heard of this theorem and I only have a vague notion of what a compact operator may be (I know what a bounded operator is and a compact operator much be close to it). This section also states the well-known fact that eigenfunctions of the self-adjoint operator L are orthogonal. Given the level of the article such a statement seems sufficient to me, your proof of orthogonality does not add much for a reader who can understand the article.
I checked the book by Margenau & Murphy. They give a fairly low-brow proof of the completeness, at least one that I can understand it. Would it no be better if we had a proof like that?
In short, the subject is of such high level that either a mathematical physicist (which I am not) or a mathematician should have a look at it. An alternative is that we lower its mathematical level.
--Paul Wormer 16:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Paul. It is refreshing to receive direction that is both professional and obviously concerned about the problem at hand, i.e., improving the article so it is approvable. That said, I am unfortunately unable to pursue the course you set out, since I am not an expert in functional analysis and my understanding of operator compactness is less than yours. Furthermore, I do not have access to Margenau & Murphy, so I can't look at their proof of completeness. I think this example demonstrates that I am not an appropriate author in the area of this article. I have received a response from John Fletcher and he has decided to refrain from contributing a new article on S-L theory. So, it looks like this article will remain dormant until someone comes along with more expertise than I have in the subject. By the way, the proof of orthogonality is his, not mine.
Since my areas of expertise are networks and distributed systems and since there are reasons I choose not to work on articles in the computers and engineering workgroups, I think the only way I have to contribute to CZ at the moment is to help improve its software, fixing some bugs and perhaps working on the core software so that the modifications specific to CZ are factored into an extension. That is where I intend to work for the foreseeable future.
P.S. Here is an ironic fact. If you Google "Sturm-Liouville theory orthogonality", the third hit on the list is the WP article and indented beneath it is a reference to John's orthogonality proof, which I left in my User space on WP. So, those searching for an orthogonality proof of S-L solutions will find it as the 6th reference on the Google list. Dan Nessett 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

## Chemical elements

Paul, what is your opinion on this forum topic? (Discovered by Hayford in Special:DeadendPages.) Peter Schmitt 18:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

## Wasted a few hours and my face is red!

I spent a few hours creating a drawing of a Carnot heat engine and finding/uploading a photo of Josiah Willard Gibbs and placing both of them in the Thermodynamics article. Some time later, I found that you had already created a drawing of a Carnot heat engine for the Energy article and mine is almost identical to yours ... and I also found that someone had already uploaded the same photo of Gibbs into Chemical thermodynamics. I could have saved myself a few hours of effort if I had only searched CZ a little better. Ah, well! Milton Beychok 01:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

## The Second law of thermodynamics

Paul, as you requested, I have reviewed the Second law of thermodynamics article to the best of my ability. Most of my changes, if not all, are just very minor rewording and copy editing. I have also raised a few more substantive questions on the article's Talk page that you should consider. I apologize for not having done more. Milton Beychok 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

## Template for chemistry

Paul, could you look at User talk:Milton Beychok#Properties and User talk:Milton Beychok#Property list. I have tried to provide a template requested on CZ:Wishlist. Peter Schmitt 13:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fond of these things. It is lots of work to collect the data, and it is not clear how reliable they are (and in some cases what they mean). Information can be contradictory. For instance, I saw an oxygen atom template (which I cannot find any longer) that says that oxygen is a gas with molecular weight close to 16. This is wrong, but understandably wrong, because these templates force you to make these sorts of errors. In this case the template forces the user to switch back and forth between molecular oxygen O2 and elemental oxygen O and it forces decisions on the user that may be questionable.--Paul Wormer 14:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The template was not my idea. It is supposed to replace the existing construction using a subpage for each entry.
Your reservations are, at least partially, taken care by the template: Without specifying compound or atom it can be used without any predefined entries. For the case, where such an option is used, comments would be useful
What data are so important that the entry should be provided as "required" default? Which entries should be offered as "optional"? Remarks like your comment that molecular and atomic mass are easily mixed up, is also important.
Peter Schmitt 12:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

## The Book of God and Physics (A novel of the Voynich mystery)

Paul, I am reading a book entitled "The Book of God and Physics" written by a Spanish physicist named Enrique Joven that has been translated into English. It is about the an ancient book called the "Voynich Manuscript".

I think you might enjoy it because it has a good bit of history dating back to the days of Kepler and Tycho Brahe.

Have you heard of this book? Milton Beychok 06:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No Milt, I haven't heard of the Voynich mystery nor of Joven. Is the book worth buying? --Paul Wormer 08:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The book sells here for US$26 ... but the copy I am reading came from our public library. Perhaps a library near you may have a copy. I don't think I would spend$25 buying it. But it is quite interesting and you seem to have a passion for historical physics. Milton Beychok 08:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that our public library will have it. I live in a small village, and our library has hardly any books in English. You're right that I'm interested in the history of science, many of my articles have a history section. I don't think such sections hurt, somebody who doesn't share my interest can easily skip them (assuming that somebody reads my articles, which I seriously doubt. But who knows, maybe somebody will read some of them sometime in the future).--Paul Wormer 08:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The Voynich manuscript isn't ancient, it's 17th century. Last I heard it was still undeciphered, though. Peter Jackson 11:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Peter, as I learned when I worked in London for 6 years or so, 300 years is not ancient at all for Europeans ... but, for Americans like me, 300 years is almost pre-historic. Milton Beychok 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Paul, give me your postal mailing address and I'll send you a copy of the book. Milton Beychok 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## Boltzmann

If it is not urgent then it is no problem. To get a good picture I would like to wait for nice weather with good light, and this has to coincide with a time when I can go there. (The Zentralfriedhof is on the other side of the town where I rarely am.) Now, in autumn/winter good light may be rare. Peter Schmitt 12:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

## Herman Van Rompuy

Hi Paul, I do not see why you redirect from Herman Van Rompuy to Van Rompuy — I would do it the other way round. --Daniel Mietchen 10:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That is because I made the mistake by starting out with Van Rompuy and I'm too lazy to move it. --Paul Wormer 10:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## Element subpages

Hi Paul, such mass deletions can be done by a bot if you can wait until they are allowed to run again. --Daniel Mietchen 15:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, consider that the information itself is useful, the format is the problem. A bot might be able to reconfigurate that information, assuming we have a plan for what to do with it? Chris Day 20:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

## Complex numbers

Paul, please have a look at Talk:Complex number/Draft#correcting approved version. Can you help? I will not mind if you make the 1/z passage a little more explicit, too. Peter Schmitt 01:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-approval of Version 2.1 completed. Thanks for your participation! D. Matt Innis 15:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Paul, I replied to you (delayed) on my talk page. Best wishes! Peter Schmitt 15:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

## a Dutch professor

Hi, Paul,

Sorry about confusing the NL and Belgium -- I was drinking my morning coffee! Now there's a prof at a NL university named Paul de Laat who has emailed saying that his *two* applications have never been attended to. As far as *I* can tell, we never received an application. Do you know anything about him? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I googled Paul de Laat and he seems to be a genuine philosopher working at the University of Groningen, a well-known university. I don't know him. --Paul Wormer 16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he says that he is Paul B. de Laat, Faculteit Filosofie, Universiteit Groningen, NL and has applied twice in the last two months with no response at all. I find no records of his applications. Geez. Hayford Peirce 16:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I am corresponding with him through the Constabulary email and have asked him to reapply -- I'll be keeping a beady eye on the process this time! Hayford Peirce 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
We finally got him registered as an Author -- he wasn't filling out 50 words in the bio space. BUT apparently he also wasn't getting a warning saying that he hadn't done so. I'll check this out and see if there's a bug in the system. Hayford Peirce 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

## Need your comment LaTex equation in Molar volume

Paul, I just created a new article called Molar volume. It includes this equation

${\displaystyle V_{\rm {m}}={\frac {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{N}x_{i}M_{i}}{\rho _{mixture}}}}$

Should it be corrected to:\this?

${\displaystyle V_{\rm {m}}={\frac {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{N}x_{i}M_{i}}{\rho _{\rm {mixture}}}}}$

In general, what are the rules for when to use italics and when to use non-italics?

Thanks in advance. Milton Beychok 03:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Milt, definitely the second, but I would use \mathrm{mixture}. (I forgot the difference between \rm and \mathrm but somehow I remember that \mathrm works better). According to the AIP style manual, words (like: total, in, out, mixture, etc.) in math must be roman also when used as sub- or superscripts. Also in roman must be: chemical symbols (O, Ne), units (Hz, J), and mathematical functions: cos, exp, etc. Personally I would write "mixt" instead of "mixture" in equations. --Paul Wormer 06:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
May I drop in? It should be \text (and I think that \textstyle looks better)
${\displaystyle V_{\rm {m}}={\frac {\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{N}x_{i}M_{i}}{\rho _{\text{mixture}}}}}$
The reason for \text (\textrm is not scriptstyle): There is a difference between the spacing of math fonts and of text fonts reflecting the fact that -- in math mode -- single letters represent variables while in text they are combined to words.
${\displaystyle diff\qquad {\textit {diff}}}$
Therefore, if italics, it should be \textit. But, moreover, "mixt(ure)" should be Roman, not Italics, because it is not the name of a variable (cf. "\log" and "log"). This is often not considered in books and journals when authors are not advised by (competent) editors.
\rm provides \mathrm, I think (needs checking), but does not take an argument, i.e. {\rm text} and \mathrm [text} are equivalent, I suppose. Curiously, \mathrm and \textrm show no difference:
${\displaystyle \mathrm {diff} \qquad {\textrm {diff}}\qquad {\rm {diff}}}$
I shall have to try this off-wiki --Peter Schmitt 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

## Edward Teller

Paul, what is lacking with Edward Teller that we would prevent it from being approved? Russell D. Jones 01:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not much, maybe a few more references? On the other hand, as I stated several times on the Forum, once it is approved, it is hard to change it. And who knows, you or I may read something interesting in the future that then will be hard to add. --Paul Wormer 13:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Another thing: WP has a section about Teller and the Israel A- and H-bombs. Teller doesn't say anything about this in his Memoirs. The WP section is based on one book only (that I haven't seen and I don't know its trustworthiness). Since the fact whether or not Israel possesses nuclear weapons is formally top-secret, I decided not to chase after that book and to skip the topic altogether. Any opinion anyone? --Paul Wormer 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul, Meg Ireland just corrected the spelling of one word in Amine gas treating/Draft. Since you never worked on that article and since you are a Chemistry editor, would you please nominate the article for single-editor re-approval so that the spelling will be corrected in the approved version? Thanks, Milton Beychok 06:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Milton, I filled out the template as best as I could, but I'm not sure I did it correctly (the same as with my Dutch IRS form). --Paul Wormer 12:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paul (and Milt), since the change that Meg made was only a wikilink spelling change to a wikilink that Milt had added, I was able to make the change as a copyedit (since it was not a content edit) to the Approved version. I did add your name, Paul, to the Approval editors' list as another approving editor (which you can do to any chemistry article that you find can recommend. D. Matt Innis 17:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

## Subpages and Properties

Hi Paul,

Just thought I'd post this:

here for you in case you were willing to relocate our discussion over there...--David Yamakuchi 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

## Need more comments from you on the Talk page of Water

After discussion on the Talk page of Water, I entered the Freezing point of water as "Not measurable" in response to the comments made by you and Daniel Mietchen. David Yamakuchi's subpage transclusion has now revised it to " 0 °C* " ... which has me at a loss. Please visit the Water Talk page and offer your comments. I really don't know what to do about this. Milton Beychok 05:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris Day has now reverted it back to "Not measurable". So all is now well (if it just stays that way). Milton Beychok 06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul, please look at my rewrite of the pH article and correct all my mistakes. Also look at its Talk page and comment on my suggestions as to what sections it still needs. Milton Beychok 06:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Milt, I'm still in Florida (without books). On Thursday and Friday I'm flying back and after recovering my jetlag I'll have a better look at the pH article.--Paul Wormer 16:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I remember that you have been critical of CZ:Lemma articles, so I would appreciate your comments on this thread at the Forums. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 09:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

## The pH article

Paul, if you are back home now and over the jet lag, please look at the pH article when you have the time and revise/edit/expand/correct or whatever. Regards and I hope you had a good time in Florida, Milton Beychok 04:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

## Well-posed problem

Reacting to a question by Milt I have started well-posed problem and tried to explain the correspondence between physics and mathematics. It may need checking by a physicist. --Peter Schmitt 00:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

## PageRank experiment

Hey, Paul, check out this:--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out the wikitable: Experiment -- CZ articles by Google Pagerank I did a mini-study of CZ articles chosen randomly, from different authors. The google search was "Article name" citizendium -- that's it, with the article title in quotes. Sometimes CZ articles came first, but surprisingly many times the "Related Article" pages, "Catalog" pages, or "Workgroup" pages BEAT OUT THE ACTUAL ARTICLE. Clearly something's wrong here. It confirms my suspicion that the related-articles subsystem confuses the Google crawlers, so that they can't figure out what links to what and as a result, CZ's web exposure suffers bigtime.----Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wondering what you think?--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

## If you have the time and inclination, please comment on Venturi tube

Paul, I would appreciate your comments or any errors you see in Venturi tube. Regards, Milton Beychok 05:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

By now, I guess that you have seen that I incorporated your comments into the Venturi article. Regards, Milton Beychok 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

## Plane

Paul, you ask about inserting your text into plane (geometry). I'm not sure. Boris' page is about the idea of a plane, while you describe its representation in 3-dimensional analytic geometry. Currently I think that it would better fit into some page devoted to coordinate geometry of 3-space.

A few observations:

• You use both bold and an arrow for vectors. Isn't this an overkill?
• What is the meaning of ^n (on some, but not all n?
• The notation is a little confusing: (a_x,a_y,a_z) for vector a, but (x,y,z) for vector r defining point X. It could be more systematic.

--Peter Schmitt 11:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Boris' article is about a plane in 3-dimensional Euclidean space; note that he gives the equation ax+by+cz = d. In the strategy of becoming more and more technical in going down an article, my piece wouldn't be out of place somewhere at the end of the article, I think.
I use arrows on top of "arrows" (directed line segments), the symbol under it doesn't have to be bold. Column vectors (three real numbers) are bold in my notation, without arrow on top. They are defined with respect to a frame, while "arrows" don't need a frame. The hat on a vector indicates a unit vector, in physics this quite a common usage. I could use (r_x, r_y, r_z) instead of (x, y, z), if you think that's better.
--Paul Wormer 11:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he mentions the equation, but his article is a survey of different methods to define the plane in 3-space, and going into details with one approach would make it necessary for the others, too. He avoided, I think, on purpose to introduce technicalities. Moreother, you implicitely assume even more knowledge about 3-space and vectors (you use vectors and free vectors, length of and angles between vectors).
I still think that it would fit nicely into Analytic geometry in 3-space (or similar). Let's see what Boris thinks.
I know that your notation comes from usage in physics. But I did not know about the hat, and I wondered why the hat is only used sometimes. (It just occcurs to me that you do not really need the normed vector at all, in this connection.)
--Peter Schmitt 12:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• I replaced the hat by an arrow.
• The unit vector is indeed not really necessary in the equation, but conventional. At the end of my piece I give an equation that only uses the vector a.
• The fact that knowledge is used that is not really defined in the same article would be a deadly sin in a textbook, but remember CZ is an encyclopedia.
• I'm completely prepared to give other equations for the plane (plus drawings) but before I spend time I wanted to hear the opinion of math editors.
--Paul Wormer 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

## Regarding the writing of an article about catalysis

Paul, my knowledge of catalysis is quite limited. I know what and how catalysts are used in many of the petroleum refining processes. But I know nothing about the chemistry of catalysis.

I took a look at the WP article on catalysis. I could port it here to CZ, do some rewording, delete a few bits that I think are not needed, and put it into CZ form (move "See also" to Related Articles subpage, move "External links" to External Links subpage, check all of the references to see if they are still active and that they are credible references, and replace their wiki links to WP articles with wiki links to CZ articles).

But I would have to assume that the content of the WP article is correct ... which may be unwise. But at least we would have an article that other Citizens might someday critically review and revise as needed. What do you think? Milton Beychok 21:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Milton, I have problems understanding the lede of the WP article on catalysis. For instance:
Catalysts may affect the reaction environment favorably, e.g. acid catalysts for reactions of carbonyl compounds form specific intermediates that are not produced naturally, such as osmate esters in osmium tetroxide-catalyzed dihydroxylation of alkenes, or cause lysis of reagents to reactive forms, such as atomic hydrogen in catalytic hydrogenation.
Why do they (WP authors) say "affect reaction environment" when they mean that "carbonyl intermediates are formed"? What does it mean that these intermediates are "not produced naturally"? Is "natural" the same as "in absence of an osmium catalyst"? Why is osmium tetroxide an "acid catalyst"? (A compound is acidic if it is either a proton donor or an electron-pair acceptor. There are no protons, so OsO4 is an electron-pair acceptor? Did you know that? I did not.) What is an "osmate ester" and what is "lysis"? It all sounds very technical and detailed ("an osmate ester as an intermediate in dihydroxylation of an alkene") to me, and hardly illuminating.
However, the WP article could be a start provided we trim everything that is not clear, or else explain it. --Paul Wormer 08:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

## Cool mathematical animation

I uploaded this "gif" file animation from the Wikimedia Commons. Do you or Milton know in which mathematical articles it might be used? Or perhaps in astronomy? (Note: I've since been told by technical people not to load any more animations or large image files FYI). Here's the image:...said Thomas Wright Sulcer (talk) 19:44, April 5, 2010

Two orbits that differ by eccentricity.

Thomas, PLEASE sign your postings. All you have to do is type ~~~~ and your post will be automatically signed and dated. As for the gif, I am not a mathematician. You would do much better by contacting Peter Schmitt. Milton Beychok 04:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I had seen that animation too (although I cannot locate it anymore) and found it very illuminating. It compares the motion of a planet in an elliptic orbit with a planet moving in a circle. Note that the circular motion is uniform (regular) and that the motion in the elliptic orbit accelerates and decelerates. This behavior is governed by the second law of Kepler that states that in equal times equal areas are "swept". Note that the planet goes quite fast when it is close to the Sun (that is in the focus on the right) because it has to cover lots of surface area. On the left it can go much slower because the surface area to be swept is much "deeper".--Paul Wormer 06:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

## The Catalysis article

Paul: I gave up on porting the WP article. It was entirely too technical for me. If I delete all the parts that I don't understand, there would be very little of the article left.

Instead, I did a great deal of reading and note-taking ... and started from scratch. I am about half-way finished at this point. You might take a look at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox and tell me what you think of it. I hope to get it finished to the best of my ability in the next 2-3 days. Then, hopefully, others more knowledgeable than I can go to work on it. Milton Beychok 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I have finished and uploaded the Catalysis article you asked me to write. Milton Beychok 04:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

## More "infrastructure" article needed

Paul, in the past few days I have uploaded the new articles Catalysis and Chemical reaction. Writing those made me realize how many other basic "infrastructure" chemistry articles we still need. For example:

• Chemical bond
• Activation energy
• Acid-base with subsections entitled: "Arrhenius theory" or "Arrhenius definition", "Lewis theory" or "Lewis definition" and "Brønsted-Lowery" or "Brønsted definition"

Could you write those or do you know anyone else who can? We really need them. Milton Beychok 02:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes Milton I agree that we need them and I know that for quite some time. But somehow I don't feel challenged by these chemical articles. As a theoretical chemist I could very well write about chemical bonding and activation energy and out of sense of duty I will do it sometime, but somehow I'm not inspired (this is not helped by a bronchitis that I have since a few weeks).--Paul Wormer 05:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope your bronchitis has run its course by now. Best wishes, Milton Beychok 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Milton and Paul: I'll put Acid-base on my to-do list, try to start it near end of the academic year. Anthony.Sebastian 16:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

## Please consider nominating Coal for Approval

Paul, I think the Coal article is ready for Approval but I cannot nominate it since I worked on it quite a bit. Would you look at it and, if you think it worthy, nominate it for Approval? Thanks, Milton Beychok 15:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick scan and coal looks good. I will read it more carefully asap. My bronchitis shrank to a cough thanks to tetracycline.--Paul Wormer 15:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Feel better.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 16:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

## Renamed Dimitri Mendeleev to Dmitri Mendeleev

Thanks, Paul. Anthony.Sebastian 16:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

## Coal article approved!

Congratulations, Paul, the article at [3] has been approved. Hayford Peirce 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

## Boltzmann

Finally, I have visited the Zentralfriedhof and made pictures of Boltzmann's grave. I have selected four and uploaded them. You'll find them on recent changes. Hope you like one of them. --Peter Schmitt 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have inserted the picture. Is there a reason why you did not do it yourself?
By the way, the picture you linked has been used by WP, but you hesitated to use it for copyright reasons?
Well, I prefer it anyway that CZ is different from WP, and the new picture is not worse, I think.
--Peter Schmitt 11:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason I didn't do it myself is that I didn't know how you wanted the credit line. Now there is no credit line, but you can put your name there if you want.--Paul Wormer 12:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It was the first time that I uploaded pictures -- whether borrowed ones or my one. I shall have to look what's usual. (If you detect other mistakes or omissions, please, let me know.) --Peter Schmitt 13:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

## Diagram of the four major phases of matter

Paul, I added a diagram to the Condensation (phase transition) article that I wrote recently. I think that diagram might be useful in some of your physics articles ... what do you think? Regards, Milton Beychok 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Milton, off-hand I cannot think of an article that could use it, but I keep it in mind.--Paul Wormer 12:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

## Ormus article

Is the Ormus article of salvageable encyclopedic quality? Milt defers to you. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I intergated your remark into the lead, but am not sure it is quite what we want. Mostly I tried to take it out of first person, but might not have succeeded. Hopefully, I've kept your meaning, but feel free to alter it even more. D. Matt Innis 13:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Matt, your changes make the article look credible. If this article becomes known we will be the laughing stock of internet, so please delete it.--Paul Wormer 13:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks as though we've sparked some discussion, but I think we did everything right. It's still totally up to you. D. Matt Innis 23:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Paul, if you still follow the forum (as I hope you do), you see that nobody doubted your expertise and your judgment. It was and is a discussion on CZ policy (how to handle such articles). Your statement:
"I see clearly now that the role of experts on Citizendium is marginal, it is restricted to asking Constables to place green check marks, and therefore I suspend my participation here for indefinite time."
is therefore unfounded. Thus I hope to meet you here again soon. --Peter Schmitt 23:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I am very sorry that you did not wait for the final outcome of the policy discussion on how to handle nonsense science.

I have been member for about a year, and if I learnt something here then it is: Discussions last long. (And it simply is not realistic that all participants agree -- some clash of opinions cannot be avoided.)

If the discussion had been stopped now it would certainly surface again.

Thus it pays to try to bring it to an end, and I sincerely hope that the final outcome will satisfy you and make you reconsider.

Do not leave in anger! --Peter Schmitt 17:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. One reason i have been associated with CZ is that I think in the long term the "voices of ignorance" will not be able to find a limelight here. If I did not think that was possible then I would not participate at all. It will be a long slog but a worthwhile one, in my opinion. Chris Day 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I came here to avoid the voices of ignorance at WP, and, like Chris, I think there's hope of making this a refuge from them. Had the Charter process moved more quickly, we might have an Editorial Council dealing with realistic approaches here. There is, I believe, a good deal of recognition that the neutrality policy is not always something can be realized, but fairness and expertise can. Still, if we are going to survive, it's the experts that are essential. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Paul, you already know how I feel. We NEED you. Milton Beychok 21:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Citizendium is the worst form of knowledge sharing, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time — I thus wish you well wherever you go, and hope that this will include further visits here. --Daniel Mietchen 23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sad Paul - especially because I think that the points you've made are right, and that the principles you expound are universally supported even if there's been dissension about how best to implement them.Gareth Leng 08:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Paul, from the above I gather that you intend to leave CZ, and it comes as a shock. May I join colleagues who ask you to reconsider? Selfishly, I would adduce the following: you helped me along when I was a newcomer (which I still am) and encouraged me to start working here. I am still in my initial phase (slow learner), but have valued your kind help very much. From a less selfish point of view, I hope that you have found satistaction in contributing to CZ, and will hopefully continue doing so. Behaviour is not always consistent, nor need it be. Should you decide to return (temporarily or otherwise), many parties would benefit, and I hope so fervently that this would include yourself. Respectfully, Bessel Dekker 22:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your comment at Talk:Memory_of_water#Rewrite Sandy Harris 13:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

## You've been Nominated!

Someone has nominated you for a position in the new Citizendium. They have noticed you're dedication to the project and like what they see. To be listed on the ballot for the position, it is necessary that you accept the nomination on the [[CZ:Nomination page|Nomination page]. Just place accept next to your name along with the four tildes. The nomination period will close at midnight October 7 (UTC). Article 54 of the new charter details the requirements:

### Article 54

• In conjunction with the Declaration of the Editor-in-Chief regarding the effectivity of this Charter, there shall be a call for nominations for the following offices: Managament Council (five seats), Editorial Council (seven seats), Managing Editor (one), Ombudsman (one). This shall be the effective date of the Charter.
• Any Citizen may nominate candidates for these positions.
• Nominations shall be collected and collated by the Chief Constable.
• Nominations shall be accepted no more than fourteen days after the effective date of the charter; the ballot shall be available starting on the twentieth day after the effective date of the charter; the election shall be completed no more than twenty-eight days after the effective date of the charter; all elected officials shall begin their term of office on the thirtieth day after the effective date of the charter.
• Only candidates who accept their nomination shall be eligible to appear on the ballot. Nominated candidates can accept nominations for no more than two official functions. Accepting a nomination serves as a declaration of commitment, in the case of being elected, to fulfill this function until the limit of the term.
• All positions shall be elected by a simple majority of the voting citizenry. In the case of a tie, an immediate run-off election shall be held.
• In the event that a candidate has been elected for two functions, the candidate shall declare which one he or she accepts within three days of announcement of the election results. In the event that such a declaration has not been made during this period, the candidate shall be considered elected for the position for which the nomination was accepted first. The same procedure applies to a reserve member that becomes elected by a seat being vacated this way.

If you would like to make a statement to help voters, click the "Statement" link to the right of your name.

Thanks again for the commitment you're making to assure that Citizendium becomes the premier quality online source we all have envisioned.

D. Matt Innis 13:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul:

Please take a moment to look at my remarks on Talk:Gaussian units, Talk:Speed of light and Talk:Free space. Thanks, John R. Brews 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

## Reversion?

Why was the user page reverted? See discussion on Rational Wiki. At least on the face of it, this seems to violate the policy that a user controls his or her own user page. Sandy Harris 02:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I can think of two reasons offhand. First, Dr. Wormer's deletion left his User page bio as being less than 50 words. Second, and more important, he was a prominent Editor here for a number of years. Editorial Council resolution http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC:PR-2010-024 basically says that Editors must be prepared to have their credentials and qualifications made public and to remain public. Dr. Wormer's credentials, therefore, were no longer maintained in a CZ space. Which is why the Constabulary, correctly in my opinion, reverted his deletion. Hayford Peirce 02:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see that an EC Resolution passed after he left is binding on him, especially when it clearly conflicts with the Charter: "Article 8 Citizens shall be considered Editors of their own user pages and subpages thereof, as long as content is not inflammatory or derogatory." Nor can I see that linking to a home page at a university which includes a list of over 100 publications is unreasonable as a way of making qualifications public; in fact it is better than most CZ bios. Moreover, the older version of the user page remains in the wiki history and can always be consulted at need; I see no reason at all to mandate that it be kept as the current version. Sandy Harris 03:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
There has always been a rule-of-thumb, or maybe even official rule, that all Citizens had to have a minimum biography of 50 words. And, as far as I can tell, Dr. Wormer is still a Citizen who makes occasional edits (check his Contributions) -- he therefore falls under our current guidelines, particularly those for Editorships. You may continue to argue this, if you wish, but I doubt if it will do you, or Dr. Wormer, any good. Hayford Peirce 04:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)