User talk:Ldm1954

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Scott Russell Surasky

[edit]

Chicago Edit-a-thon for September 18

[edit]

Hello! This is Luiysia again. Hope everyone had been having a great summer! Here are the details for our September bimonthly meetup.

We will be hosting this month's meetup at UIC's Wiki Week, at the September 18th edit-a-thon. It will take place at the Institute of Humanities from noon to 4 pm.

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.)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günther Kletetschka

[edit]

Seems a bit odd, maybe even showing a lack of good faith. He might be ok in some fields, although I’m very dubious about his time stuff. But he was also very wrong about the air burst stuff. I don’t see a problem in noting that the paper was retracted. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the edits that people made to that page, I certainly agree with you.
Saying that a paper was retracted is OK assuming that this retraction had SIGCOV and that he was a major player (first or last). According to the author list he is one of many, I have no checked if the retraction qualified as notable. What is unconditionally wrong is to not also cite the correction by the same authors at DOI:10.1038/s41598-022-06266-9.
The comments in the lead about "and has not been accepted by the general scientific community" is definitely a non-NPOV extraction from ref [3]; it is given more accurately later. While I think his work is wrong, I believe we have to be balanced,
If he was closer to a Pass than I would care more and edit the page, just being fair. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected but still wrong. There was no air burst, no comet. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A key point is that for NPOV a balanced explanation is needed. As I said, this is not anything I care about so beyond pointing out the issue with the editing I have no interest. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

[edit]

Noting that I've declined your WP:G15 nomination of Yield (circuit) since original research or essay-like writing is not one of the criteria for deleting pages under G15. The criteria is very specifically about unreviewed large-language model content. The community has not (yet) authorized a WP:CSD criteria encompassing all LLM generated content. Please take a second to familiarize yourself with the criteria before nominating further pages under the criteria. Sohom (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:49:14, 9 September 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by AndrewApicello

[edit]


The E. James Petersson submission is reasonable and he qualifies to pass WP:NPROF.

He satisfies criteria 1: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." He has an h-index of 43. The H-index is commonly used in the chemical field despite caution from citation metrics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics

He satisfies criteria 2: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". Here you will find that this is the National Science Foundation's most prestigious award for young faculty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation_CAREER_Award.

Compare to his peer at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Rhoades where her most prestigious award is the Michael and Kate Bárány Award - far less than any of his awards since it doesn't have a stated dollar amount associated with it and on further investigation is only for a few thousand dollars: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_and_Kate_B%C3%A1r%C3%A1ny_Award.

I see an uneven bar preventing this academician from being represented on Wikipedia.


AndrewApicello (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The career award is an early career award. Those do not qualify for #2, this is very well accepted, only major awards such as ACS Fellow or section achievement prizes. Her citations are slightly higher, both number (47 v 43) and total (7176 v 5749). There are other major differences, for instance her highest citation is 480 whereas his is 250.
As I said, he is slightly below the bar, she is above. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Power system reduction

[edit]

Hello, @Ldm1954. After reverting edits, you should add a {{Not a typo}} template. If I made a mistake, feel free to ask on my talk page. Thanks! KuyaMoHirowo • he/him (DM me on Discord at kuyamohirowo (DMs are open!)) :3 • View profile on Carrd 02:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Associativity isomorphism

[edit]

I looked at the tags you added. You may be interested in the following discussion:WT:WPM#Associativity isomorphism. I didn't say anything about the notability of the article's subject (although I did ask about the notability of "identities" (unitors)), so I think your comment will advance the discussion. --SilverMatsu (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My tags do not comment on the math, just the (un)reliability of the sourcing. I don't have anything to add to your discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Negative air ions for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Negative air ions, which you previously marked as reviewed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negative air ions until a consensus is reached, and you are welcomed to contribute to the discussion.SodiumBot (botop|talk) 19:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These updates are delivered by SodiumBot. To opt out of these messages, add {{User:SodiumBot/NoNPPDelivery}} to your talk page.