User talk:Ldm1954

Review improvements?

Hello!

First, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to review my initial submission of my Wei-Ying Ma article. I've made several edits to the article improving the tone and adding more references per your suggestion. Before I resubmit it, would you mind taking a peek through to see if there's anything else specifically disqualifying that I can fix?

Thank you kindly! Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Much, much better. Some suggestions:

1. Add a link to his Google Scholar profile at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SToCbu8AAAAJ&hl=en. Check a few pages to see how to do this.
2. I am dubious about how notable all his "awards" are. I would remove member of the ACM
3. Have another pass to remove any WP:PEACOCK. He is notable, but promo can annoy reviewers and led to declination. I won't review it a second time, although I will watch.

Ldm1954 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate you! Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Article about the Adamchik transformation

OK, alright! Now I have read the message you have sent to me. In the first and fourth point you mentioned the aspect, that I took a wrong format. I want to say something about exactly that. At the beginning I have been even trying many times to create a right format. But it really did not work. I wanted to bring the longer equations into a chest so that it does not sloppy or slipshod in any way. Of course I wanted and want the formulas to look stylish and decent. I really tried to design the format in that way. But it unfortunately did not work. Now I want to talk about the other mentioned points. I did not know that it is non serious and unwanted to use StackExchange as a source. For me especially it seemed to be a serious source that I really could use. Now I am informed in a better way. Now I am aware that this reference source apparently should not be listed so quickly. This is an interesting fact I now got to know. Now I want to talk about the primary sources in relation to the non primary sources. It is very hard for me to differentiate, which of them are primary and which of them are not. This is something I even wrestled with in my times of studying nature sciences at universities a few years ago. But I sincerely ask you to help me differentiate what is primary and what not. The mentioned comparison with a textbook essay is something that does not really help me. This is something so many people say to me. So many people often tell that I write articles like a different kind of essay. They even say that when I talk to my fellow humans. They often say that I talk as though I wrote an essay. That happens so often. It has a profound reason why that happens to me that often. But I am not secure that everything will be clear if I start talking about that background so quickly. But if you really want to know, I can tell you indeed. And in relation to the mentioned aspect of the many cites of a referred source I do not even know if this is something good or bad. Let me say the following thing!

I really gave my best. And the content I entered into that Wikipedia article Adamchik transformation was really researched by mathematicians, especially by Victor Adamchik and David Jeffrey, but also by even more mathematicians. And therefore I decided to enter the research results of the mathematical work into the mentioned Wikipedia article. It was very important for me that their results do not get lost, but instead of that remain preserved by publishing an article about that. In this way you clearly can see that my article is definitely not any original research but it really is proven and documented. So I clearly created exactly this Wikipedia article. And I am really happy and glad to read, that you value it as something not bad and in this way something good. By saying this sentence and also the following sentences, I really do not mean to make fun of you in any way. I really am thankful and grateful about that. I really know to appreciate feedbacks, especially positive feedbacks. So I clearly thank you for your honest evaluation. I always want to give my best. Of course I know that for some users my article is not notable enough, but I want to say even something about that. I was specializing in writing articles on specific topics, especially specific mathematical topics that often only experts are familiar with. But I really hope that you will not erase the Wikipedia article. For me this article really is a relevant article. And for me the solving of equations of higher degrees is a very important topic. I confess that even I make big researches about that topic and also about the special topic of solving these equations by using elliptic functions, especially modular functions. This is so fascinating and so interesting for me. So I write many articles in Wikipedia about such wonderful mathematical topics. Also in all the following years I will continue to consistently give my best and do my best. I say the truth. Reformbenediktiner (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reformbenediktiner, you are right, I was not saying that the page should not exist rather that it needs strengthening. If I thought it was really bad then I would have nominated it for deletion -- the notability tags just indicates that I am not sure that it is adequate, but might be.

In terms of the format, sorry but I don't do equations so I can't help on that. I suggest that you ask for help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, you will probably get someone to assist there.

In terms of the sources, the problem with both Stack Exchange and the last one is that they are not verified by anyone -- anyone can post there. You should look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, one of the key things is that someone else verifies it. You should also look at the Wikipedia:UGC section.

For textbooks please look at Wikipedia:NOTATEXTBOOK. A lot of what you have seems to me to be a "how to" on the method, which is not the same as an encyclopedic article.

Primary papers are those written by the target of the page, here Adamchik and Jeffrey. Secondary sources are papers, ideally reviews which discuss the work of the primary papers. In terms of general sources, I took the first paper you had and looked at those which cite it using Google Scholar here. (Some of these may be useful secondary sources. I am not a mathematician so I cannot help you as to whether they are.) You can also look at the papers that paper cites, again they might have more information.

Last, you can always post at WT:MATH where someone might be able to help you more than I can. (It may be a while before anyone responds.) Ldm1954 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright! I understood everything. And yes, I will ask the Teahouse page for help. And OK, now I definitely understood why to avoid StackExchange. This is a clear argument. Therefore I will change the reference link into a link of a serious source. I can remember Google Scholar in a very good way. This is a brilliant searching platform for scientific essays indeed. OK, I want to do everything mentioned. Have a nice time! Reformbenediktiner (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Decline of Draft:Frana Araujo Mace

Hello, I'm reaching out regarding your decline of Draft:Frana Araujo Mace, and the comment you left on that draft which said You will need to work much harder than this to prove notability.. I wanted to note that this decline was inappropriate, as elected state legislators of the US are considered notable, per WP:NPOL. I've gone ahead and accepted this draft after @FloridaArmy resubmitted it. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yakiv Pavlenko

Hi Ldm1954 -- I've started looking at this article after the AfD was closed as keep. I'm going to try to move some of the less important bits of Pavlenko's career to the talk page, and see what's left... I think we should also cut the research papers down to a maximum of around five -- I tend to go for two or three for mid-career scientists, and five for retired/deceased scientists, unless the notability is unusually high or the scientist worked in very different areas, but physics might be different? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw that you had started, and I agree about the papers. One benchmark is what NSF allows which is 10. Hence anything from 5-10 is OK with me. I would go for the higher cites, trying to spread them across the years. Let me know if you want a 2nd opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a prune at the papers later based on citations, got to go offline now. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Take a look -- I've reduced to 7 based largely on GS citations, but also taking into account the number of authors, plus the more-recent one referenced in the text as associated with the Damasso et al. paper. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

They look fine to me. One thing, the quote which starts "Red dwarfs has wide developed.." the attribution confused me because I thought from the text that he wrote the article, but they are just quoting him. Maybe tweak the attribution? Ldm1954 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what on Earth that was, I couldn't find an author using Google Translate. We could just delete it altogether? I'm not sure what purpose it is serving. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That he made some comment in or about an article hits no notability. Then I think it is done, except the Video's should probably go at the end under external links. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. The article looks a lot better now. Let us hope that the creator does not decide to edit war; I'll keep it watchlisted for a while just in case. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict, no great surprise but all the fluff is getting added back plus he deleted the talk page material. I reverted both, but I won't be surprised to see a repeat. I don't have admin rights (I don't want them anyway), so over to you. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed there'd been some work on the article while I was asleep but haven't had a chance to look yet. Admins don't have any more say in content areas than editors without the tools but I'll see what I think. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I retained a minor edit he made about the wife, but reverted him adding back the mess of quotes, publications, ex-students etc. I will let you handle the next edits if they occur. I left a polite note on his talk page. N.B., I can't block him, but I guess you could. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I'd count as involved here. I can try adding to your note on their talk. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The following content moved to Talk:Yakiv Pavlenko

I prefer to keep pages about passed away person clean of dummy talks. No need to hurt readers with all the talks, that was fully inappropriate.

AfD of this page was initiated unfair in the first place, ignoring all the proofs. It was resolved, no need to keep past talk.

If I placed back some references and links, decided by other editors inappropriate, please, bring a minute to review my last edit before rolling back my last edits in whole ta once.

And if you really decides something to be excluded from last edits, select only parts already removed from the article (and add the valuable reason why it is inappropriate in revert edit description), but not delete all the new content I (or anyone alse) adds.

Also, I think some removed links are valuable (especially the last years publications on exocomets), even other editors think otherwise.

About video and interview (audio) publications links: there was only 5 or 6 public appearance of the person in the media available on the web. I guess its important and should be kept in the article.

Appsoft4 (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Infrared non-destructive testing of materials

I agree that this article was not very good at all, but I've removed the PROD and started excising the worst of the material. It'll probably look nothing like the original and may have been better off deleted and remade at active thermography (which is what the article discusses for most of the text, even if it claims to be about IRNDT), which is discussed only in a couple sentences on thermography and looks to have a good amount of literature in the corpus of nondestructive testing reference works on Springerlink. Reconrabbit 20:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me. Ping me again if you want a 2nd opinion on anything. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)