User talk:Ldm1954: Difference between revisions

Ising critical exponents

@Ldm1954

Hello, given the repeated removal of Ning Su's formula. I am not sure you realize how strange this is. You say the article should be understandable to high school students. High school students in which country? In the US or in the UK or in any other English-speaking country? In which high school? I am sure there are are many high school students who know what the Gamma function is (I knew this when I was in high school), and there are many high school students who don't even know the multiplication table. If you do know about the Gamma function, as I hope you do, why not add an explanatory comment? (And maybe plug the formula into Mathematica to see that it really works.) If you don't know about the Gamma function, then most likely you don't care at all about this area of mathematical physics, so why bother? Why not turn your attention to articles about the subjects you have a minimum of expertise?

Go ahead, butcher this page. But think about the collateral damage - your petty policing is disenchanting your fellow editors. I am a practicing theoretical physicist, I don't have much time anyway. PhysicsAboveAll (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

A draft

@Ldm1954

Hi Ldm1954, nice to meet you. I noticed you marked the AfC Draft:Jan Zarzycki. Do you think it is not currently good enough to accept? Take into account that the Polish language article has been published. Your question concerning contribution is not supported by all references (see e.g. DONA). Thank you, ‪KSz at OWPTM Chris KSz at OWPTM (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Whether there is a Polish language page is not relevant, different WP have different stdndards. There have been no changes to the page that make it meet the standards of WP:NPROF, and I do not understand what you mean by "see e.g. DONA". Ldm1954 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Dona is the another reference in article Jan Zarzycki. KSz at OWPTM (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

See also details of academic activities and contributions Zarzycki, Jan (1998). Cyfrowa filtracja ortogonalna sygnałów losowych. Układy i Systemy Elektroniczne. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Techniczne. ISBN 978-83-204-2245-0.; KSz at OWPTM (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It means that you claim "he has a total of 8 publications" is not true. Some databases are not refreshed, however there are some relevant information there not available in another one. KSz at OWPTM (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately the creating editor chose to promote this to become an article. Since WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevented unilateral redraftification (what a word!) I have sent it to AfD quoting your AFC comment. It's regrettable when editors don't take advice. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your comment about leeway. I am in total agreement up to but not beyond the point when the novice editor 'knows best' and moves a draft to mainspace. Leeway and AFC go hand in glove. Unless, of course, one is sailing, when I prefer not to wear gloves expect im winter 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear All involved in discussion on the Jan Zarzycki biogram! Nice to hear that you try to evalate the man based on my short text. However, I do not see real understanding of him.

I'm very sorry,but I don't see the connection of these comments with the facts also.

The authors of the comments didn't read the references in the article, they didn't take the trouble to understand anything from what is relevant in the bio. They do not know the realities of others but from their surroundings and do not want to develop Wikipedia.

I state the above because: JZarzycki did research on important and difficult issues in signal analysis. He wrote widely known research reports and monographs on this subject (Springer publisher), went through all levels of scientific career - a path recognized not only in Poland but in most countries. In a difficult procedure to pass - not for tenure but for dignity - he obtained confirmation of his rank from the hand of the President of Poland.

Reference databases continue to be supplemented with his achievements-which had a chance to be added on his Wikipedia bio.

However, a thoughtless act of vandalism resulted in the removal of the article about him.

@Ldm1954@Timtrent@Liz@KJs KSz at OWPTM (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@KSz at OWPTM And yet you chose not to contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Zarzycki which opened on 20th and closed on 27th May 2025 as Delete. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Seeking Advice - How to remove "major contributor - close connection with its subject."

Apologies for proposing additions and/or corrections to a wikipedia page featuring myself (Sheila DeWitt). I definately did not fully understand the rules. Therefore, I would appreciate your advice in how I can correct the issue / remove the flag on the page. Should I "undo" my edits or is there another way suggested course of action? Thanks in advance! Sheiladewitt (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

You just answered your own question as to why the tag is there. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 15:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that you use the procedure for a COI editor to request a change. You can comment on the talk page of the article, that is fine. (I see you have not added the COI declaration on your talk page and the BLP -- I strongly suggest doing this quickly.) Then use Wikipedia:Edit requests. It is turgid, and you may end up with incorrect information about yourself but you have to live with that (I do). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the guidance! I now understand how I should have suggested edits as a new COI editor. However, I'm still a bit unclear about how to quickly add the COI declaration on my talk page (as you suggested) without suggesting an edit. Can/should I do this even without any proposed edits? Should I also "undo" the edits that I made on April 30 and just start over on the talk page? Much appreciated! Sheiladewitt (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Pascual Berrone and advertising vandalism by HostraGo

Dear Ldm1954: I am looking for new references and rewriting the article on Pascual Berrone when a vandalistic company replaced all the work with an advertising page. I am shocked. Please remove all of this so that I can continue working on the article. Thank you very much.--Ursulabela (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I have seen that I can undo the vandalism myself. So I will do that. In a few minutes, I will write to you again explaining all the changes, and I hope that the article will have been substantially improved. Thank you very much for your help. I see that you are also a researcher. Best regards.--Ursulabela (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Ldm1954: After resolving the vandalism issue, I have made the following changes.

I have attempted to revise the article under review based on new sources and including verifiable references: - UNESCO: this page from an official multilateral organization certifies that he holds the Schneider Electric Chair - World Economic Forum: this page also certifies the Schneider Chair and that he has been vice president of the Ibero-American Academy of Management, in addition to his presence in various academic institutions in the US, Canada, etc., and his areas of study. - The Scilit Page: this is an author record generated algorithmically from publicly available information. Here you can check his academic output, the topics he has covered, and the number of times his works have been cited.

I have gathered all the information about Berrone research and publications. I see that the Google Scholar reference has been added to all the articles. I have removed the names of the academic journals and a lot of supplementary information about the IESE Cities in Motion research project, because I see that there is a Wikipedia page about it, although I see that it is not up to date.

Please, Ldm1954, let me know if I need to remove more information or make further changes so that the maintenance template can be removed. Thanks a lot, --Ursulabela (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

You have a lot of unsourced, or incorrectly sourced information:

1. The lead claims he is an editor, but nothing in the source provided
2. Later you say 40 papers, but his h-factor on GS is 41
3. You claim those papers are noteworthy -- why? Who says so? Why should anyone care.

You have a lot of trivial information:

1. All academics publish papers
2. All academics have funded research project
3. Notability is not inherited, dropping Taylor Swift is not relevant
4. Best paper is not a major award, as our others such as a thesis award
5. Claims of "among others" are peacock.

Read WP:NPROF carefully and look at the pages of other academics. Think how (and if) he is notable, then make that case without bragging. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Help on draft

Dear LDM,

I was working on an article for an Indian academician (Draft:Sanket Goel) which was published but then reverted back to draft due to it not "conclusively" meeting notability criteria and having many unresolved tags. I'm a new editor an this was my first successful article. Can you please help or give me advice on how to clear up the tags and get the article published again? Thank you very much. Shashy 922 (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You were previously given very clear information that you need to resolve the COI issue. You should read WP:XRV and then make a clear argument on why you believe that there is no COI.

Beyond that you have problems. I do not believe that he passes WP:NPROF, neither do others. If he was elected a fellow if IEEE that would be enough, but the Indian societies are less prestigious.

Good luck. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply LDM.

For the COI issue, I understand that I need to ask the editor who put the tag to remove it and give them my reasons as per WP:XRV

For the notability issue, I couldn't find any guidelines on how a journal or society would be considered "prestigious". Further, as I previously said during the deletion discussion, the subject also has a relatively high h-index of 38 (I'm sure other metrics would also show that the subject is well cited), showing their impact in their field. Shouldn't that be sufficient to satisfy Criteria 1 per 1a?

Also while Dean or Provost may noy be sufficient to satisfy Criteria 6, the guidelines say that there can be an exception in the case of a major institution, which BITS Pilani is. Again, I'm not sure as to what guidelines outline how an institution can be categorized as "major" but many independent sources support that BITS Pilani is a major university.

How can I show this to the community and get the draft re-published? Shashy 922 (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

You cannot make your own interpretations:

1. An h-index of 38 is not high in his area
2. For #6 is says "a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify", a Dean is much below

A concensus was reached. The only way forward is as stated at the deletion_discussion "But perhaps more will appear in the future". I already said that at present he does not qualify IMO. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Notes on measuring notability

Hi @Ldm1954, I've reached you here before. We recently had a discussion on assessing notability assessments (e.g. h-index) here, and you mentioned how citation metrics differ between disciplines compared to STEM, whereby an h-index of 24 is deemed too low. So I was wondering based on this, what do you think about this scientist with an h-index of 21? The article which has won them the Fields Medal still to this date has only ~500 citations, so had they not won the fields medal, were we justified in refuting their notability based on h-index?

And on the same point, about this article moved to the draftspace, are you sure we do not need more consensus regarding their notability? They have an h-index of 16, which I think is high enough in the field of philosophy artificial intelligence and AI-ethics, and since you mentioned them as a fresh assistant professor, I have to note that they became assistant professor in 2021 at University of Edinburgh first (just added to the article), before joining CMU in 2024, so it might not be that fresh. Plus I added a couple more sources covering their research, as well as fellowships and awards. So it might be worth taking a look again. Xpander (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion at WT:NPROF, see for instance [1], [2], [3]. To me h-factors are a bit like grading students; it is an important and generally unbiased metric despite its failings. In the following I will omit HEP, since their h-factors are absurdly high and I avoid them if I can.

To me what matters is a comparison to peers. This can be done by any of (ideally a combination of):

1. Others in the areas they list in a GScholar profile.
2. The h-factors of their co-authors (not grad students or postdocs) who are senior academics, ideally with WP profiles.
3. The quality of the publications, i.e. Science (journal) or Journal of the American Chemical Society (field dependent of course).
4. Whether they have any very highly cited publications. I will give "bonus points" for > 1K citations, but not > 100 in general. If they have a single publication with > 5K cites that can be enough by itself.
5. Knowledge of the area, if there is overlap.
6. Past experience, particularly if you have participated a lot in AfD.
7. Relevant tenure cases if you have sat on committees (not everyone has).
8. Awards as "bonus"

I find that my conclusions generally are close to concensus at AfD, although I have been both more and less accepting in some cases. One recent case (ongoing) where I seem to be more accepting is AfD Rachid Ouaissa as I feel this is a low citation area. A second low cite area where I was part of the Keep concensus is Kirtiraj Gaikwad. An ongoing case where there were no awards and other issues but the h-factor was decent and the publications are in top journals is Niall J. English. Finally, a case where I did not consider her comparable to her peers (and is in my area) is Hazel Assender.

I hope this helps. IMHO WP:NPP can be quite complex if you do it trying to be unbiased Ldm1954 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Michael_Rotter

@Ldm1954 Good afternoon - I am the main author on the article on J.M. Rotter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Rotter). I am at a loss as to what specifically is required here, and publicly available references are extremely hard to find despite the man having an obvious peer-reviewed publication record that speaks for himself.

Please can I ask for more specific feedback on why this article is not yet acceptable. I note there other articles of a similar vein, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teng_Jin-guang, which have been accepted with extremely minimal referencing. Full respects intended to Prof. Teng, who is a colleague, it's just that the burden of referencing feels inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.26.203 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

That article was accepted in 2019 when sourcing was less strict. It does need more sources, and I just tagged it as lacking sources.

Please look at WP:WAX, which is relevant to your argument. Just because BLP A is lacking in sources is not grounds for passing BLP B. Please also read WP:BURDEN. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Asking for advice

Dear LDM, I am presently working on a new version of a page for Riccardo D'Auria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Riccardo_D%27Auria_(theoretical_physicist)) for resubmission. I have been working on it following your comments. Here are the main changes: 1) I have added a link to Riccardo D'Auria's page, as emeritus professor, at the Polytechnic University of Turin; 2) When referring to his appointment as Full Professor at Padua University, as a source I added a reference to the papers he wrote with the explicit affiliation to Padua University. The reference is taken from INSPIRE HEP database; 3) I did the same when research periods spent at CERN and UCLA are mentioned; 4) I reorganized a bit the Contributions part. Unfortunately I do not have accessible documentation proving that he graduated in Physics at the University of Turin, under the supervision of Tullio Regge. If you think it necessary I can remove that part. I would be grateful if you could have a look at the draft and give me some advice in view of a resubmission. Thank you very much for your time. With best regards, Mario Trigiante Trigiant (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the page is OK. I did a few minor format edits, including converting the refs. It looks like a couple may be duplicates, I will let you clean that up, and perhaps add other info using the template editor within Wikipedia. You should then submit it for review, I let others do the second review in general.

In terms of his PhD thesis, I could not find it either. I suggest leaving it in unless someone complains. You could always write to him, and/or ask the Physics Dept in Turin or the Library there. I have found librarians to be most useful for this, it seems to be something they like to do.

Good luck. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Re: Your email

Your concerns are noted, but their threat is meaningless and meant only to intimidate you. Can you point me to the AFD in question? You may also want to look at WP:911 for more help. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Fellow of IAWS

Fellow of IAWS; Allow me please, your point is not correct. This is the highest recognition in the scientific area of wood sciences. Please kindly check the below. The Fellows are elected every year; [4]

Quote from the website: Fellows of the IAWS are wood scientists who are elected as actively engaged in wood research in the broadest sense, their election being evidence of high scientific standards. New Fellows are nominated and evaluated by Fellows. The Executive Committee determines the number of nominees to be accepted as Fellows each year, based on those evaluations - It is not a membership thing.

See also these websites [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. G-Lignum (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Chicago Meetup for July 13

Hello! This is Luiysia again. Hope everyone has been having a great summer! Here are the details for our July bimonthly meetup, which will be a Wiknic.

The meetup will start at Welles Park, in the Ravenswood neighborhood, at 2 PM on July 13.

Here is the official meetup page, where you can add yourself as an attendee.

(If you would prefer not to see messages for Chicago meetups, go ahead and take yourself off this list.)

See you soon!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Response to Scott Russell Surasky Revert

Thank you for your message regarding my edits to Scott Russell Surasky. I’m addressing your concern about the *The Hill* and *Economic Times* sources returning 404 errors, as noted in your revert on 21 June 2025.

As of 21 June 2025, both links are live and accessible:

• The Hill (July 12, 2024) – Discusses Surasky’s commentary on Biden’s cognitive health.
• Economic Times (July 15, 2024) – Quotes Surasky on Biden’s neurological condition.

It’s possible you encountered temporary server issues or regional restrictions. Could you confirm if these links now work for you? If the 404 errors persist, I’m happy to provide alternative sources or assist in formatting the citations correctly.

Thank you for your time and for maintaining Wikipedia’s standards. I look forward to your feedback. Neurodoc99 (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

If you look carefully, you will see that the links you provide above are different from those you used before. The ones that were in the article were https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4344334-biden-mental-health-diagnosis-goldwater-rule and https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/doctors-analyze-bidens-cognition-after-debate/articleshow/104719817.cms. That those were invalid sources was previously pointed out to you by Alpha3031. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)