User talk:Ldm1954

This is Ldm1954's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

Your GA nomination of Extended Wulff constructions

The article Extended Wulff constructions you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Extended Wulff constructions for comments about the article, and Talk:Extended Wulff constructions/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of I2Overcome -- I2Overcome (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy deletion: Quipu (cosmic structure)

Hi there, and thank you for your help with NPP! I wanted to let you know I have declined your G4 speedy deletion nomination of Quipu (cosmic structure) because the article was not previously deleted at AFD; rather, it was draftified as WP:TOOSOON. Given that the article was not improved since the draftification, I have returned the article to draftspace instead and salted. Let me know if you have questions, comments, and/or concerns regarding this decision. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salting it is fine with me -- I don't have those rights. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice regarding Draft:Dana Cupkova

Hello @Ldm1954, I have revised the article according to the comments that you provided. I have submitted the draft for review now. Can you please review it?

I thank you sincerely for your help.Solid Needle (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I added a comment that it is to the draft, plus that in general I don't review a second time to get a wider perspective. Good luck. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fail-safes in nanotechnology

I'm sorry that I deprodded this, because I'm not an expert, and you are, but there are sources. Can you please go to WP:AfD to discuss this as far as significant coverage is concerned? Again, apologies putting you through this. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will write more for the AfD. 😎 Ldm1954 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Icosahedral twins

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Icosahedral twins you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Icosahedral twins

The article Icosahedral twins you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Icosahedral twins for comments about the article, and Talk:Icosahedral twins/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Hi @Ldm1954, after one of your recent article reviews. I learned quite a bit about academic notability. So I was going to ask, if you don't mind of course that you take a look at my other articles as well. I think by the same token, some of my other articles aren't notable either. For example [1] has even lower citations than 2.5k that you mentioned, does the citation metrics differ between humanities and sciences? In any case I wouldn't mind if you move any of my articles back to draft space, or start a deletion discussion, my aim is simply to master academic notability. Xpander (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xpander, good question. Several part response:

I mainly review in STEM and (less frequently) in somewhat related areas such as economics. I rarely review in the arts or history.
You cannot just look at citations, it has to be done relative to others in that field. The one I commented on was in theoretical physics & the comparison would be to others such as this. While you can't compare with the top people, his numbers are quite low compared to others; his work is close to my expertise so I am comfortable evaluating his research output.
In some fields citation numbers are quite small. In many parts of math an h-factor of 24 is strong, while I have been told that in music it would be outstanding.
We look for major, international peer recognition. That tells us that others in the field value the contributions.
In some areas we look for books, which is more WP:Author. I have seen people indicate that strong reviews matter for these; I have kept away from cases where books matter.

From a quick look, most of your pages are philosophers and I don't have enough experience there to feel confident about giving an opinion. You could post a question at WT:NPROF to get feedback in a more general way. (I strongly suggest looking at the current and archived talk there, a lot of information.) I also suggest looking at the AfD discussions for academics where you will see comments. The ones which are well reasoned often carry the day. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing RfC listings

Hi, just to let you know, there was no need to make these four edits. First, WP:RFC#Creating an RfC says If you subsequently amend the text of the initial RfC statement ..., Legobot will copy the amended version to the RfC listings the next time that it runs. Second, as advised by the notice displayed when editing, it's a bot-maintained page and if anybody other than Legobot edits it, Legobot will merely rebuild the page to match what it believes that the page should contain. So, having amended Talk:Nonmetal, all you needed to do was wait for the next Legobot run - normally at one minute past each hour. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing

I am subject of the article Djan Khoe. I consider to add a link to the emerity website of the university (https://www.emeriti-tueindhoven.nl/prof-g-d-djan-khoe-1946 ) . The article is considered a biography, the website shows a detailed biography so I believe that it will improve the article. I am also considering to add a citation to a book (2030: Technology That Will Change The World. Oxford University Press). The book has been translated into Arabic, Chinese, Indonesian and Korean. The wiki article has been nominated for deletion so I must be sure not to violate wiki rules in doing so. Please comment Khoe0005 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion nomination was withdrawn. I previously made suggestions on your talk on what you should do, you request that others do the editing for you. Please follow that, and/or read the other information about how to handle a COI. I strongly advise against editing your own page, particularly now that your COI is known. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the time and motivation to do some minor editing for me ? Obviously I will be willing to return the favour one way or another. Khoe0005 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you should use {{COI}}, it is what I have used. It is not really appropriate for me to do your edit requests in private. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP!

You are targeting all of my edits for no good reason. PLEASE STOP. 134.199.3.226 (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of a new article

Hello @Ldm1954, thank you for your help with my last article. I have now drafted a new article about a large educational outreach programme at Oxford. May I ask you to have a look at it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trekut/sandbox before I formally submit it for review? I would appreciate your advice. Thank you. Trekut (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]