Hello, Jähmefyysikko. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Quasiclassical theory of superconductivity, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, Jähmefyysikko. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Nils Turesson (Bielke), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with ourdraftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simplyedit the submission, and remove the{{db-afc}},{{db-draft}}, or{{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructionshere. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
@Jähmefyysikko Hi and thanks for your help and kind words. I noticed that you did some writing on Superconductivity and that you take the time of reading Breuer & Petruccione and got to page 226 :) Having said that, i think you have more knowledge of the subject than you show. Would you, or anyone you know be willing to take me by the hand and make a good article about it? Also would you be willing to strike the ```detele``` for a short while? So that I have time to re-write the page ? Just asking, i will take no for an answer CheersHarold Foppele (talk)15:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I won't strike it, and it wouldn't matter if I did. The deletion discussion is a debate instead of a vote and that's clearly in favor of deletion. If I struck out the vote, it would only serve to confuse the volunteer who is eventually going to close the discussion and determine the consensus. And it doesn't matter anyway, nothing is lost when the article is deleted: the text is still in your sandbox, and you are still free to submit other articles through the AfC process. The only effect is that the readers won't see the unfinished article.
Unfortunately, I also can't promise to be your mentor, but I can offer some suggestions here: I saw that your changed the article name toMaster Equations for Noisy Qubits. However, we usually do not have articles on "[theoretical approach] for [topic]" because that would introduce too much redundancy between the articles. Instead, we have separate articles for the theoretical approach and the topic on which it is applied, and I recommend that you abandon that article idea. Now, I find The discussion about qubit fidelity somewhat superficial across WP. Perhaps expandQubit#Physical implementation andQuantum computing on that part?Jähmefyysikko (talk)07:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jähmefyysikko Greetings and Thanks !! I edited the page and re-wrote some of the content. Made more links and checked all references. I understand that beeing a mentor is a bridge to far :) Do you think the edits bring it more to the standards? Btw look atUser talk:Harold Foppele if you like. The discussion with Ldm1954. What do you think? CheersHarold Foppele (talk)08:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article "Open-system formulations in quantum computing" provides a concise yet technical overview of how open quantum systems are modeled to address noise and decoherence in quantum computing, particularly in the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era. It effectively outlines the mathematical frameworks—such as the Lindblad and Redfield equations—and their applications in noise modeling, error correction, and fault-tolerant quantum computing. The inclusion of key equations, like the Schrödinger and Lindblad equations, alongside references to seminal works (e.g., Nielsen & Chuang, Breuer & Petruccione), grounds the article in established quantum theory. However, its dense mathematical notation and technical jargon may limit accessibility to non-experts, potentially benefiting from a more intuitive explanation of concepts like decoherence or Kraus operators for broader comprehension.
The article’s strength lies in its focus on practical applications, such as noise modeling for superconducting qubits and error correction, which are critical for advancing quantum hardware. The references to recent works and external articles (e.g., arXiv papers) enhance its relevance, though some links, like the SpinQ articles, seem less authoritative and could be supplemented with more peer-reviewed sources. The "Challenges" section is particularly insightful, highlighting limitations of current models (e.g., Lindblad’s Markovian assumption) and pointing to emerging hybrid approaches, which reflects the field’s dynamic evolution.
One concern is the article’s nomination for deletion (noted in the template), suggesting potential issues with notability or content overlap with existing Wikipedia pages on open quantum systems or quantum decoherence. To strengthen its case for retention, the article could better differentiate itself by emphasizing unique aspects of open-system formulations specific to quantum computing, perhaps by expanding on NISQ-specific challenges or recent experimental advancements. Overall, it’s a valuable resource for those with a technical background but could improve clarity and source quality to ensure broader appeal and robustness.Harold Foppele (talk)08:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, not sure of your current plans, but I wish to warn you that if the current article gets deleted, you should not submit a similar article to AfC. It might be perceived asWP:disruptive, and might get you blocked. I only suggested that you copy the article to your sandbox so that you might save the sources you had collected and use those in a completely rewritten article, or use its pieces in other articles.Jähmefyysikko (talk)12:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jähmefyysikko Thank you for your warning. I am just rewriting the article in mySandbox>. This is after that i got encouragement to improve the article. Now instead of changing the original article which might cause confusing, i think that is better. I was already blocked by trying to blank the article :) If you have time and interest, please look at the sandbox and if you want, comment on it? CheersHarold Foppele (talk)12:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jähmefyysikko Hi, per suggestion of Johnjbarton i started to rewrite the article Open Quantum System. To avoid any edit war or whatsoever, i did all editing in myUser:Harold Foppele/sandbox-2 . If you want and have time could you please comment on that talk page? Once you all are satisfied i copy the sandbox to the original or delete the sandbox if you think its bad. CheersHarold Foppele (talk)09:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'll take a look later. For now, I only removed the categories from that page. they can be restored when the draft is merged with the current content.Jähmefyysikko (talk)10:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are being paid to improve Verrett's reputation, you must disclose that. Your continual interest in softening very well-sourced criticism of this person does not seem quite normal to me. This is not an accusation, just a reminder of a very important guideline that we all must follow.SergeWoodzing (talk)13:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not being paid for any WP edits. Negatively biased BLPs reflect poorly on the project, and editors should not let their personal opinions affect the article text. Although I am personally biased against pseudoscience and other fringe topics, I respect WP's guidelines on neutrality. There have been enoughWP:SYNTH and other issues on that page to justify my edits. If you have any specific concerns, please raise them on the article talk page.Jähmefyysikko (talk)15:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And even though you said it wasn't, your comment is effectively an accusation. It's best if we avoid guessing at each other's motives and keep the focus on content. Cheers,Jähmefyysikko (talk)15:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Harold Foppele/sandbox-4 Good afternoon. I would like to write an article in this form, but then cited etc ect. This is just a textual rough form but it is to express the idea. Do you think that it is feasible?Harold Foppele (talk)11:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, I don't think that's a feasible idea. The focus here is on building an encyclopedia, and that's not encyclopedic content. It seems to be an essay of some kind.Jähmefyysikko (talk)11:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is an essay, but i can re-write it. I thought the tone could be lighter and easy to understand, more visual then mathematic. It covers many aspects of Quantum. But i forget it :) Thanks for your comment.Harold Foppele (talk)12:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have to discourage you from trying to create stand-alone articles. It's not working well and I am concerned it may be wasting other editors' time.Jähmefyysikko (talk)05:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mTankishguy. I noticed that you recentlyremoved content fromKingdom of Finland (1918) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurateedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please useyour sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. You did explain, but not adequately enough to remove an infobox.Tankishguy :)(: (talk)03:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tankishguy, it is considered somewhat rude to use these templates to discuss with experienced users. Also, there was an edit summary, and had you compared that with the article content, you might have seen the edit as justified. Please be more careful when using those antivandalism tools in the future. Cheers,Jähmefyysikko (talk)03:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I removed some "advantages" in color blindness article
The reason why I removed them is mostly because they lacked replication and they were not verified by any studies, the sources that claimed "advantages" which I removed also didn't provide any solid references or reasons either, such claimed "advantages" comes from an outdated study (which is from 2005 and didn't give any references), first deuteranomaly consistently impairs khaki discrimination rather than enhancing it because deuteranomaly compress the red–green channel and claiming it enhances it contradicts the physiology of cone function and rather many khaki shades actually look identical to deuteranomals, second there wasn't any solid replication or evidence of "color dimension unique to color-deficient observers" where they can distinguish colors that trichromats can't, the outdated source (which is also from 2005) doesn't give visual or physiological evidence of where the "dimension unique to deuteranomals" is. I will give more reasons why they should be removed later.Cursed74 (talk)13:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section is bit too optimistic about the advantages, but removal is too drastic a solution. How is the study outdated? The reason cannot be that it is 20 years old science (as science this is still fairly recent). KernellColours and Colour Vision discusses the possible advantages and cites it. Do you have a source which discusses the compression you mention above? The "unique color dimension" refers to the fact that metamerism differs from normal. I'll add Kernell as a ref and adjust the section a little once I get to a proper keyboard.Jähmefyysikko (talk)15:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the study itself as "outdated", I'm talking about the 2005 paper from the study which the paper only says "People with red-green colour blindness are better at discerning shades of khaki." and doesn't give even further references or reasons why. Also Neitz & Neitz, 2011, Clinical and Experimental Optometry is the source that discusses the compression I mentioned above and many more sources out there discusses it too. And also I get that "unique color dimension" refers to the fact that metamerism differs from normal.Cursed74 (talk)15:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Neitz2 seems like a good source, although I did not yet have the time to study it in detail. Could you point out the section that discusses the compression? It does not seem be near the citation to Bosten et al. (2005). To me, the claim seems plausible; when the cone signals are subtracted, L-L' gives a clearer signal compared to L-M in the narrow range between the peak wavelengths. Outside that range, the signal is weaker.Jähmefyysikko (talk)03:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it may appear “plausible” to you that L–L' differences could create a sharper response in a narrow spectral range, in practice this is outweighed by the overall compression of L and M signals. The reduced spectral separation lowers the independence of the L–M opponent channel, leading to fewer discriminable hues across the red–green axis. Empirical studies (Bosten et al. 2005; Barbur et al. 2008) consistently find poorer, not enhanced, khaki discrimination in deuteranomaly. Also making M' overlap more with L reduces the orthogonality of the opponent channel (L–M). This increases noise and reduces discrimination across the spectrum, including in khaki ranges. Moving M' closer to L does not create a new advantage; it simply collapses the chromatic coding space and then their signals are highly redundant. Also the "Abstract" section in Neitz discusses the compression.Cursed74 (talk)11:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general that's probably true, but the question in the advantages section is whether there aresome stimuli which anomalous trichromats differentiate better. This question does not seem to be directly discussed by Neitz & Neitz, making it somewhat irrelevant source for this discussion. Why do you claim that Bosten et al. (2005) give evidence for poorer discrimination? They design a test based on desaturated green (khaki) disks that favors those with deuteranomaly, and then find that the they indeed perform better than those with normal vision. Do you read it differently? Of course, it should be described with more nuance, it is not actually about simple hue discrimination, but they actually employ confusion lines of normal people in an anomalous color space.Jähmefyysikko (talk)12:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused about what Bosten et al. (2005) said. Also I understand they design such test and they found that deuteranomals perform better but these effects can be context-dependent and don't generalize since it probably only applies to artifically structured stimuli.Cursed74 (talk)13:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they do look like ordinary green to a trichromat, but the condition is designed in a very specific way along anomalous color lines. That’s why deuteranomals might score a bit better.Cursed74 (talk)14:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kiitos muokkauksestasi artikkeliinFinnish markka. Suomen kuningaskuntaa 1918 ei käsitttääkseni koskaan ollut virallisesti olemassa, se oli vain ehdotus uudeksi hallitusmuodoksi sen jälkeen kun Suomi oli itsenäistynyt Venäjän keisarikunnasta. Ei voida sanoa että Suomen markka oli käytösssä Suomen kuningaskunnassa, se oli käytössä vain Suomen suuriruhtinaskunnassa ja itsenäisessä Suomen tasvallassa. 23:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)JIP |Talk23:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages, even user talk, are supposed to be open for comment from any interested user. That will be tough for those of us who do not know your beautiful Finnish language. --SergeWoodzing (talk)23:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, a phrase such as "made seminal contributions" has to be supported by source(s) that say exs tly that, otherwise it isWP:Peacock. Please check the article for peacock.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|Ldm1954}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Revdel done, but in future please supply the urls the content was copied from and if they're not in English some idea of the translation.Nthep (talk)12:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jähmefyysikko. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Quasiclassical theory of superconductivity, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
