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

John P. Platt

This article has significant problems. Please consider moving it back to draft. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG, I agree that it has format problems, but in my opinion these are moderately minor, certainly by comparison to many others. Sorry but I dont see the peacock although I do agree with you about the sources for his career -- I meant to tag that but forgot. Note that he flies through WP:NPROF on both #C1 & #C2.

My opinion is leave it with the tags and let the editor clean it up. If they don't in a reasonable time frame (2 weeks?) then draftify. Of course you can draftify yourself if you want, I wont edit war. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG, N.B., maybe a bit of newbie nurturing is needed here. The original editor is a new one, enthusiastically creating some BLP drafts with an unconventional format. I left them a note on their talk page and a link to Starry Grandma's guide which I like. Please add to their talk page if you feel that would be useful, everyone makes mistakes at first. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have changed your mind. Thank you. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Awards for 2024

		The New Page Reviewer's NPP Barnstar Award
		This award is given in recognition to Ldm1954 for conducting 235 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scheuer

The template has two entries 'Doctoral students' and 'Other notable students', not 'Notable Doctoral students', so even by wikipedia's narrow definition of notable it seems that listing doctoral students without wikipedia pages should be fine. Or do I miss something? Scibiog (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scibiog yes, you missed the clarification about the meaning of notable in the template discussion archives. If you search the archive the same point is in archives 1, 8, 9 and maybe more. This has been discussed enough times that a general concensus has been reached; wikipedia works by concensus. To change this would require you to make a proposal on the template talk page and have a concensus of editors agree with the change.

The list of students (and postdocs) is part of a CV, and wikipedia pages are not CVs. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the 'Doctoral students' section does not specify 'notable', whereas the 'Other students' does. The names are all doctoral students. Scibiog (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the archive. Two editors have already reverted the addition. If you think that was wrong you need to post to the template page, not here. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I'll post to the template page. Scibiog (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Submission regarding Christoph Clauser

Dear LDM, I read your second comment and must confess that I am puzzled, because I do not understand which links you find incorrect or missing. I double-checked and all of them are working. What is it exactly that you find missing? I am willing to improve the text but your review leaves me at loss ZAYBXC (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZAYBXC, please read the documentation, WP:CS, WP:RS, WP:MOS, WP:BURDEN, WP:CS.

All references are by him, so are not independent.
Structures such as [[Günter Clauser]] are inappropriate, we do not use inline html links
You still have significant unverified claims, for instance the paragraph that starts "In 2006, together with his colleagues Alan Green" as one of several.

This is not facebook or linkedin, many of the reviewers of pages are professional academics who insist on the same care and attention to detail as is found in journal articles. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R.K. Kotnala

Hi @Ldm1954, this is just a courtesy notice that I undid your draftification of R.K. Kotnala as the article was originally moved to the mainspace back in August, see the edits about 1 August 2024. As such, it's past the 90 day window that allows for draftification per WP:DRAFTNO.

By all means, please don't take my reversion of the move as an endorsement of any of the content, and if you feel like you want to challenge the content in a BRD-style removal, I would encourage you to do so. Just letting you know that draftification cannot be used as a back-door to deletion.

Happy editing! All the best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I normally check that, I missed it. Apologies. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Deanna_Martin

According to ldm1954's review of this draft page, "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

I want to edit this page to be consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, but how do I respond to this criticism when the article already contains "She [Deanna Martin] created a world-wide education program and helped to establish it in hundreds of academic institutions world-wide." How many people have done that. The University of Missour-Kansas City established a center, the International Center for Supplemental Instruction base on her work. There are hundreds of centers for supplemental instruction (renamed Peer-Assisted Study Sessions in Europe when Dr Martin introduced it there), and it exists on four continents, but ldm1954 is unimpressed. Would someone kindly explain why? And maybe cite how many other educators have established programs of such scope worldwide.

Mbaugher (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a set of specifics. Expanding slightly, you need to READ WP:N and work out within which category she falls. No UMKC awards are major, and no quotes from UMKC have any relevance. Awards need to be awards from national and/or international organizations with > 1000 members. Quotes have to be completely independent of her any her employer, and from major figures such as senators, nobel laureates etc. Your saying that she created the program is irrelevant, that is WP:OPINION; it has to come from a completely independent source in a reviewed article. Wikipedia is strict because we have so many people creating articles that pruning is needed. Proof is needed, please see WP:BURDEN.

Note, my comments states "do not show that the subject qualifies", it is up to you to prove this. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. But I would appreciate it if you would answer my question: If someone developed an educational program that was adopted in hundreds of institutions on at least four continents would that be irrelevant? Would the websites of a dozen national universities that cited Deanna Martin's role in establishing their programs be acceptable secondary sources? I am looking for guidance, not a polemic. Mbaugher (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please permit me to interrupt here and ask you a question: under which of the various notability guidelines listed at WP:N do you think the subject of this article would qualify? Until you decide which category applies, it is hard to give you specific guidance. Once you have decided which category applies, read the qualifications under that section to determine what is required to demonstrate notability. If, after you have decided on a particular notability category you have questions about how to apply the corresponding guidelines for determining if a subject should have a WP article, then by all means ask away. But asking questions before that seems premature. YBG (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbaugher: oops, I forgot to ping you. YBG (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if you can help me

Hi @Ldm1954, I appreciate your feedback on the articles I’ve written, I was hoping I could ask you about something else that I am struggling with and don’t know where to find the answer or how/who to ask. In the articles I created (4), I am trying to check and see if in any of the sources, especially PDFs that I did not use links with identifying information in it like my username, etc. I am struggling to figure it out because I look at the corrections lists on the wiki article but become overwhelmed because I don’t understand all of the jargon or how to tell. Any ideas on how I can figure this out? I would be grateful for any insight you may have on this. Thank you Logger67 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the context. Are you uploading PDFs to a server thenn citing them? Ldm1954 (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954, No, not uploading PDFs to a server—just citing them as sources. The concern is whether any of the links used in the original citations contain personal identifiers, like a username in the URL. If a PDF link is posted on Wikipedia, the name that appears depends on how the document is hosted. In some cases, it might show the original uploader’s name, but in others, it could display the name of whoever opens the link. Do you have any suggestions on how to can check to see if any of the original sources posted have identifiers in it? Logger67 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why you are concerned, are they your PDFs or what? Ldm1954 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954, No, they’re not my PDFs. I’m just trying to make sure that none of the sources cited in the articles contain personal identifiers, like usernames in the URL. Since some PDFs can display an uploader’s or viewer’s name, I want to double-check that no identifying information was accidentally included in the citations. Do you have any advice on how to check for that? Logger67 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea and I dont understand why you are concerned unless they are yours or you have a COI. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I appreciate your time. Just to clarify, I don’t know any of the people I’ve written for or are paid by them. The concern isn’t about ownership or a conflict of interest—I’m just trying to make sure that none of the sources cited in the articles contain personal identifiers, like usernames in the URL. It’s a precaution to ensure no unintended identifying information was included. If you have any suggestions on how to check for that, I’d really appreciate it. That’s all. Thanks again. Logger67 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

==Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bin Xie (researcher)==

Morning @Ldm1954: It looks like you were right on Xie. There has been a strong delete sentiment at the Afd. I was wide of the mark by a long way. I will need to reevaluate how I do these. Did you perchance tag any other academics with the note tag? I can maybe post them for a discussion. Thanks for posting the note tag. scope_creep^Talk 05:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Scope creep, slow response as I was on multiple planes. Thanks for the offer but it is OK. Everyone seems to have a slightly different approach in NPP; my NPROF/science bar is quite high but I try to encourage editors to improve articles. My normal approach in NPP is to tag for notability if it is unclear; draftify if notability is clear but it needs work, and an immediate AfD if it is an experienced editors or way off ( e.g. a graduate student). Sometimes editors are receptive and it works out well; sometimes not. If there is no response I will come back to an AfD, although I do sometimes forget to. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its understandable. Afd is really good process for academics. It seems to work well as there are several regulars who can look at it almost right away, including yourself, I suppose. I must admit I quite suprised how quickly it was rejected. Anyway, if you need any help on it or anything really, ping me. scope_creep^Talk 17:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for the offer. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]