User talk:Ldm1954

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

1. I mainly review in STEM and (less frequently) in somewhat related areas such as economics. I rarely review in the arts or history.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. We look for major, international peer recognition. That tells us that others in the field value the contributions.
5. 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]

Thank you very much @Ldm1954. I really wish all the editors on Wikipedia approached the subjects with such humility. I will look to the other sources as well. Best. Xpander (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I have a quick look, and I think it is unlikely that as currently written you have much chance. The issue is that all your sources are from Oxford or who the people on the board are. What you do not have are articles in the Grauniad, Daily Mail, Oxford weekly rag or similar about the program. You have to have a fair amount of that to demonstrate that others consider the program to be notable. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. COMPOS has been mentioned in the Guardian (cited), but you are right, it appears to have a low profile in mass media. This could be due to its specialized audience (STEM-talented UK school students) and its relatively recent establishment (pilot in 2021). On the other hand, it arguably has a significant social footprint, with over 500 students fully enrolled and 1200 in the follow-along program; these numbers are expected to double in the next academic year. There is a lot of discussion of COMPOS in social media, but these are perhaps not appropriate for citing in the article. Does Wikipedia have any alternative acceptance criteria, aside from mass media profile, for this type of situations? Recognition by Wikipedia is important to increase awareness of COMPOS amongst studients from UK low-income families, which are the school's primary target audience. Trekut (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ldm, thank you so much for starting the ball rolling here. Just on the off-chance: might you be able to anything about this? I declined a WP:G11 there on the grounds that the page was (just barely) fixable and he is surely (?) notable, but I don't have the confidence to venture into that jungle myself. I know it's not your field, but wondered if I might perhaps tempt you to do so all the same? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC) (Note: I'll leave a !vote at the AfD soon)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for keeping things neutral. Xpander (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tags can always be removed when the issue has been resolved. Skyerise (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know better than this. Yes, the primary sources was resolved but just your single opinion does not demonstrate notability. Please remember the 5P. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you know better than this; your single opinion does not demonstrate non-notablilty. And it is your single opinion since you are the only one who has opined since sources were added. Skyerise (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I obliquely mentioned the dispute above in an ANI and want to make sure I mention you, though I'm not sure exactly how party to it you directly are considering the context. Better safe than sorry, tough.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was just doing my standard task of WP:NPP checking of new physics articles, and defending other NPP reviewers. When doing NPP you need a thick skin and some forbearance as I am sure you know. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ldm1954, nice to meet you. I noticed you marked the AfC Draft:Thomas E. Cravens. Do you think it is currently good enough to accept? Thank you, (an AfC reviewer) CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 15:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better. In 99% of cases I don't review twice in a row. Good luck. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954, Thank you. Didn't want to tread on your toes or ignore any concerns. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]