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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dona is the another reference in article Jan Zarzycki.^[1][2] KSz at OWPTM (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.; ^{[3][2][4][5][6][7]} KSz at OWPTM (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

1. "Dorobek naukowy Politechniki Wrocławskiej (baza DONA)". dona.pwr.edu.pl. Retrieved 2025-02-04.
2. Zarzycki, Jan (2025). "Scopus". Elsevier B.V. (in Polish).
3. "Dorobek naukowy Politechniki Wrocławskiej (baza DONA)". dona.pwr.edu.pl. Retrieved 2025-02-04.
4. Zarzycki, Jan. "Promotorstwa doktoratów". omnis-pwr.primo.exlibrisgroup.com. Retrieved 2025-02-04.
5. Zarzycki, Jan (1986). Nieliniowa prognoza i modelowanie stochastyczne sygnałów losowych wyższego rzędu [Nonlinear forecasting and stochastic modeling of higher-order random signals] (in Polish) (Prace Naukowe Instytutu Telekomunikacji i Akustyki Politechniki Wrocławskiej. ed.). Wrocław: Politechnika Wrocławska. p. 130.
6. Zarzycki, Jan (1985). Nonlinear prediction ladder-filters for higher-order stochastic sequences. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences. Vol. 73. Berlin: Springer. p. 132. doi:10.1007/BFb0007210.
7. Maksymilian A. Górski, Karol Grudziński, Robert Hossa, Wiesław Madej, Janusz Śliwiński, Jan Zarzycki. Patent. Polska, nr PL 214221, opubl. 31.07.2013. Zgłosz. nr 381887 z 02.03.2007 . Urządzenia sterujące. Wojskowy Instytut Techniki Inżynieryjnej im. prof. Józefa Kosackiego ; 3 s.

Chicago Meetup for May 24

Hello! This is Luiysia again. Hope everyone has been enjoying the warm weather! Here are the details for our May bimonthly meetup. The meetup will start at Botanical Cafe, in the North Center neighborhood, at 11 AM.

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elmar Schrüfer move from mainspace to draft

Dear LDM,

Thank you for taking the time to look over the Elmar Schrüfer, and for the edits you have already made. I have looked over the page Wikipedia:Drafts, and while I am behind the times on policy, it seems to me that that may not have been the right decision. I agree that the article is not perfect - I made a number of edits to the German text, including removing a lot of unsourced text. If you look at the German version, you'll see that there's only a single reference.

Unfortunately, as Elmar Schrüfer retired many years ago, there isn't a lot of online material about him that is easy to find. That means that improving the article will be likely difficult, but as far as I can tell, his notability is clear.

I think that nearly everyone who received the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (Cross of Merit) is likely to be notable (i.e. simply receiving the award already makes you notable). In the year that Schrüfer received it, the ratio of awarded people to Germans was roughly 1:20,000 (but the award can also go to non-Germans).

With regards to academic notability, the guidelines say "For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1 ... honorary degrees". Schrüfer has two, from different countries.

While internal university awards do not count for notability, when TUM created the award, he was awarded in its second year. That obviously doesn't establish notability by itself, but it contributes to the picture that he was likely a big fish in a big pond (TUM).

I don't know about his scholarly work, but I would bet that his book on Messtechnic was the "standard textbook" in German speaking countries.

Taken all together, I think it's clear that he was definitely not an "average" professor.

Assuming you agree that notability is satisfied, my understanding from poking around policy pages is that that if the subject of an article is notable, the article shouldn't be moved from the main space, unless there are serious problems with it. I don't think the objections you have raised meet the bar recommended for moving a notable page into draft space. If I am wrong about that, please point me to the recommendation.

Thanks again for your contributions. a bunch of penguins (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article again, I just saw that he (supposedly) also had a Festschrift dedicated to him, which is 1c in WP:PROF. Unfortunately, I could not find the journal Messen & Prüfen, so... yeah, doesn't establish notability because of lack of actual proof. But I would bet it's real.

With regard to the textbook, I was poking around the national library, and found that the 13th edition was published in 2022[1], which fits with my suspicion that this is likely the standard textbook in German speaking countries for the topic. a bunch of penguins (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I view WP:NPP as quality control. This may range from a few tags to draftification, PROD or AfD nomination all on a case-by-case basis. I will frequently draftify if I think there is a fair amount of work needed. At WP:AfC reviewers would almost certainly say that more sources are needed, and turn it down for improvement. That is my view as well. He is not that far in the past, so a bit of hunting will find things particularly if you use the Wayback machines. For instance, I suspect that this is his PhD thesis, but it would need to be verified. (I don't speak German, and don't want to rely on Google translate for this.)

With respect to the medal, I don't know -- truly don't know! We do not consider a British MBE to be enough for notability, I do not know about German awards; perhaps a good question for the WP:Teahouse or WT:Germany.

I suspect that if you patch up the current issues with more sources and less essay he will be readily accepted via AfC or even a direct move to main (although I think AfC is better). Ldm1954 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found Kürschners Deutscher Gelehrten-Kalender in the Wayback machine. Schrüfer's entry is 17 lines long, there were 12 professors on the same page of the book that only had 2-3 lines. And that book was from 1996, when he only had one honorary PhD (not 3).

Schrüfer meets notability in 3 separate ways: 3x honorary professor, author of a standard reference textbook, and Order of Merit presented to him by the President of Germany. All three of these are demonstrated by an authoritative and independent source (Kürschners). Feel free to remove material that doesn't have a citation (my thought was to leave it in with "citation needed" in order to guide future editors for what to look for). But "reads too much like an essay" is (IMO) not a reasonable criteria to let the page for a notable person linger in draft space. For that reason, I moved this back to main, based on the guidelines in WP:DRAFTOBJECT.

I think the work you are doing in NPP is great, and I hope this doesn't bother you too much. (I had trouble working out how to search the Wayback Machine, but it was a helpful prod that you gave me that led me to find Kürschners). I have some thoughts about this whole process, so I'm going to chime in on the discussion page there, please take a look later.

a bunch of penguins (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested, my comment is now at: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. a bunch of penguins (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just now learned that I misunderstood WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and I shouldn't have moved it back into mainspace without getting your agreement first. Sorry about that! Now I know in case it happens again. a bunch of penguins (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I don't review twice except in special cases. I did note the criticisms by others about sourcing, you may want to add more. I am quite gentle in my NPP compared to some! Ldm1954 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

==

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your expertise

Hi. I found you because I had Orlando Rivero on my watchlist. I came across the article while patrolling. Would you take a look at a few other articles? The editor who created Orlando Rivero is not terribly experienced and has created 30 one-edit articles in the last 11 days. The articles about academics that remain are Steven D. Roper, Randy Brooks (biologist), Michael D. Martinez.

Thanks in advance. I used to annoy DGG with these things.:( I will try not to annoy you. Julie JSFarman (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Randy Brooks (biologist) as I mainly work with scientists (I know their h-factors better). That page looks like AI hallucinations, and I could not verify too many sources. I draftified that one, I have not checked the other two, but would not be surprised. They all look like AI. Maybe time to warn him? Ldm1954 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like most of their contributions are LLM generated (including comments in AfD discussions). I thought the bad URLs were intentional -- that they are hallucinations makes sense. The use of AI might also explain the rapid-fire articles they have created. I will leave a warning, and thanks for the speed! JSFarman (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a warning myself -- several others already had and many of the article have now been draftified/AfD; fingers crossed they will listen. Otherwise it will be requesting a block, this is creating too much work for others. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Edits Needed to Publish Draft

Dear Ldm1954,

Thank you for your comments on Draft:Stuart Conway. I'm inexperience in publishing Wikipedia articles, so I wanted to ask for more details on what is needed to have this article published. Why would his citation record not pass him as notable? What type of information is needed to pass him as notable? Could the "Affiliations" section be edited in a way that it doesn't look like a CV or do you recommend that I remove it entirely. Thank you in advance for any information you can provide. Brandonlindo (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading this BLP guide, looking at pages of others and carefully read WP:NPROF. Just being a full professor at an R1 University is not enough, and everyone gets junior awards (or they would not get tenure). He has to stand out, and you have to show this without bragging (WP:Peacock). It takes time to learn how to construct a WP articles, we all go through this. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]