User talk:Ldm1954/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edward Karavakis's draft

Dear Ldm1954,

Thank you very much for your comments. I have added a COI statement on the talk page and fixed the mess with multiple duplicates in the Google Scholar page. --EdwardKaravakis (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks fine now. I am in the process of accepting it. You should clean up slightly your references, they go after a "." or "," (not before) and they do not have space between them -- please check other pages. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Ldm1954:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1100 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andrew Wiles on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Electron diffraction

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Electron diffraction 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 FuzzyMagma -- FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be glad to help with anything needed. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Everything is answered. The full book references are appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Andrea Rabolini's draft

Dear Ldm1954, I'm writing about the decline of the page Draft:Dario Polli. I understand your criticisms about the points that I have to improve. However, I would like to point out that Prof. Dario Polli was elected fellow of OPTICA and SPIE, two of the most important societies in optics and photonics worldwide. They promote "fellow" a few people per year on a selective basis, just like IEEE cited in WP:NACADEMIC. I do not want to be polemical, I just want to ask which aspects I have to take into consideration in order to improve writing Wikipedia pages! Thank you very much. Andrea Rabolini (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The big problem is that you have mixed in a lot of not notable material with the two things that might qualify (OPTICA & SPIE) so they are diluted. Both are a little marginal on notability, for instance 129/year for SPIE is OK but ~220/year for OPTICA is marginal. I have gone through and marked with ^{[verify notability]} places which have dubious notability and could perhaps be deleted, and some with . For instance, I suggest a link to his PhD thesis. The wording on his achievements is also poorly stated, what is called WP:Peacock.

See if you can find unrelated (local newspapers etc) articles to boost him. Material from his university is useful, but can be considered as biased. If you find enough ping me and I will give further feedback. Good luck. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Rublamb (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Alexei A. Kornyshev draft

Dear Ldm1954,

Professor Kornyshev has the prestigious position of a Chair of Chemical Physics (Full Professor) of Imperial College London, which is one of the World top 10 Universities, subject to many international ratings, e.g. QS rating). All the details of his career have been approved by Imperial College: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/a.kornyshev . Obviously, I cannot send you copies of contracts of all his previous and current appointments, which are not for public distribution, but that documentation was provided to Imperial College when he was appointed to his current post.  I should also mention that some of his achievements and prizes, especially those before early 2000s, have no online references to provide.

I am, however, able to send you the copies of the following documents, which professor Kornyshev allowed me to copy and submit to you:

1. A set of copies of his PhD and DSc diplomas

2. A set of copies documenting his awards, received long ago and for which we could not find corresponding web pages (web links to all other awards were included in the earlier submitted text).  These are:

A. Appointment as a member of IUPAC commission

B. Christian-Friedrich Schoenbein “Contribution to Science” Medal

C.Confirmation of election to Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters (Diploma of a Foreign Member)

D. Diploma of the 1991 Humboldt Prize.

These documents are not confidential, but he would not wish them to appear anywhere on the web. They are provided for the confidence of the Wikipedia Editors, and after the page is set – I ask that these would be archived or deleted.

Would that help in making page live? How shall I send you these documents?

With best regards,

Ehud Haimov Ehudhaim (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There have to be citations on the page to all of those you mention, and more. This is a fundamental requirement for all articles in Wikipedia. If statements made in an article are not validated by sources then they should be removed. The rules are particularly strict for academics. There is no point in sending them to me or anyone else, that will do nothing.

N.B., the various editors have been gentle with you, all pointing out that you need to add sources and remove Wikipedia:Peacock, that is anything that even slightly looks like bragging. I have seen editors be much, much nastier. There are some who would just delete 90% of the current draft. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

i have marked some of what needs sources. In addition, reduce the Bibliography, remove claims that seem like bragging, remove grants and minor details/awards/positions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll work on that. Ehudhaim (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Electron diffraction

The article Electron diffraction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Electron diffraction for comments about the article, and Talk:Electron diffraction/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FuzzyMagma -- FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tuple on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Having an article about yourself

What is on Wikipedia is an encyclopedia article about you from an independent point of view, which is different from having an information page about yourself. I suggest leaving it to other editors to manage, and contacting science editors by way of WT:PHY when you have questions about what is going on at the article. The current discussion about sources does not make sense, but those of us with experience with this can pursue it. Go and make yourself a nice cup of tea, which I am doing for myself now, and not look at the article for a few days. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I am going to walk away from the page Laurence D. Marks, as the current editors are refusing to listen to me and introducing yet more incorrect statements. They know my life better than I do. I will wait for a week or so, and if the page still contains significant misinformation I will consider putting in a WP:AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Got your email. Happily I had just made myself another cup of tea. It is a very good idea to walk away for a while. This matters too you, which is why we discourage editors from working on articles about themselves.

A little background about encyclopedia articles and Wikipedia in particular. Academics and researchers don't generate the kind of media coverage that politicians, entertainers, and sports figures do. This poses problems here at Wikipedia, which has an enormous amount of popular culture coverage. Many editors are opposed to having articles about any academic who hasn't made the newspapers or other media in some way. They want one criteria of notablilty that covers all living people. On the science and academic side, we want to cover the people who do the work of the science that is included in Wikipedia, and not have to wait for the obituaries written by the professional societies. Over the years Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) (WP:NPROF) developed, but it gets debated several times a year.

We have articles about academics and researchers who have made a significant impact on their field. An encyclopedia article isn't a resume. (We always have a link to a resume if one is available so that information is just a click away.) The focus is on what the person's contributions have been, the awards related to those contributions, and, if possible, the professional development that resulted in the contributions. I've written a guide to writing such an article (see here), motivated by what to say to students who have pasted their professor's web page in as an article. That is, what to do instead of a copyright violation. We have very few biographies that successfully explain the professor's academic work. An example I cite is: David A. Hafler (as of Dec 2018) - neurologist. I don't like the timeline style I used then, and would write the professional development section differently now. The subject himself has edited it later and I may go in and remove stuff. I haven't included what to leave out in that guide, but I am going to talk about that now.

A quote from WP:NPROF: The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? For the purposes of an article, leave out all the average professor stuff, which means most of the resume stuff. Leave out scholarships. Leave out grants - most professors have them. I leave out early career awards unless unusual. They show promise. Our articles are about the promise fulfulled and don't need them. Leave out fellowship support, especially of the kind that can be considered bragging, like a Fulbright. I would use the announcement instead as a reference for what you are doing with it. You are a Fellow of the American Physical Society. That is a big deal. You are an APS Fellow because you made an impact on your field: but what is that impact? For example, back in 2015 I read abstracts of papers and I have been reading whatever I can find now, but I can't say why the Marks dodecahedron matters - though I've found a book source that I can't see enough of that might do it.

Please stop making edit requests at the article talk page. I will be happy to work with you here on your talk page and address your concerns about the article. You can explain to me why the work matters, and we can find sources that say it. Introductions to papers often do a good review of field, but I don't have access to jstor. Don't discount university press releases - though they have to be used carefully. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Re...

Re: "I have enough grey hair that I know what is notable versus fake in academia". You probably know all this, but I will reiterate some opinions based on my interactions with Wikipedia:

• A big problem is that academicians are usually blind as to what counts vs what elevates their prominence.
• Another problem is the concept of "useful". Example: many academicians proclaim the utility of MOFs, but just try to find an industrial app.
• My favorite guidelines are WP:SECONDARY (avoid primary refs) and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK (we disclose knowledge, we dont instruct).
• Edits from profs and similar are usually fine, it is their students who are often tone-deaf about what Wikipedia is supposed to be.

In any case, Wikipedia would be very fortunate to have your expertise. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Protein Imager draft article rejection

Hi, regarding the rejection of my article Draft:Protein Imager, previously I added other secondary authoritative sources like:

https://www.rcsb.org/molecular-graphics-software from RCSB Protein Data Bank

https://ccsb.scripps.edu/illustrate/ from CCSB Center for Computation Structural Biology

Moreover there is the reference article https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa009 from Oxford Bioinformatics that is a peer reviewed and authoritative scientific journal in the sector.

I also have other secondary sources like:

https://archivio.uninsubria.it (italian source) from Insubria University

https://handwiki.org/wiki/Software:Protein_Imager from Hand Wiki (that seems to be a copy and paste from my previous draft article)

https://mindthegraph.com from Mind The Graph Platform

Is this enought to demonstrate the notability of the software? Molpgraphfan (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Ldm1954, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page 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) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft: General Collective Intelligence

Thanks for your suggestions about reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines, and potentially containing more than one topic. Can you be more specific about which topics should be separated? If possible, can you also be specific about what layout guidelines haven't been followed? CognitiveMMA (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your suggestions. Can you be more specific about which topics should be separated and if possible, can you also be specific about what layout guidelines haven't been followed? CognitiveMMA (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, not my job. I suggest you get help from the Wikipedia:Help desk, and also read the style guide Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Ldm1954. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
• Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
• Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Ldm1954. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
• Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
• Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ldm1954 (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

draft:Gary Woodward

Hello, I appreciate your review and comments on my draft. I think I’ve included enough details to meet notability standards but eager to discuss it further if needed. His books were peer-reviewed in journals when published, and I think it’s important that his writing was among the earliest in the new field. One thing I can’t figure out in editing is changing a name title to include a middle initial, as he appears to throughout his published works, etc. Hoping to add pages for others (co-authors, etc.!) once I get the hang of it all. Thanks again, and be well. RJK509 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@RJK509, unfortunately you have gone in the wrong direction. The reviews you added do not prove notability, it is one of the "features" of Wikipedia that a notable book does not make the author notable. (Odd, but that is the established consensus.) Also, all the reviews and similar you have added can be considered as "bragging", what is called PEACOCK. Added them goes backwards.

The only thing you have added that might be relevant is what you call "awards", i.e.

"His research has been supported by awards from the National Endowment of the Humanities, the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, CBS, and C-SPAN."

If these are true awards (here is a medal), then they matter. However, if they are just a grant to do research then they don't as all faculty get grants. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I understand, it’s just a little head-spinning to seek secondary sources but also not use them. Is it enough to just write “his book was reviewed in X journal” and leave it at that? Carefully reading notability (academics), I’m struggling a bit to fairly say that he wrote books before anyone else did, and now this is a college major and its own communication discipline… without “peacocking.” I will try more. Thanks again RJK509 (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, just saying reviewed works. Perhaps you can say "he was an early formulator of...". Also something like "his book was used in the first majors on the topic" (if you have a source to prove that). Ldm1954 (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you ran into a different reviewer who I know is harsher than I am. It can be tough! Ldm1954 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem with toughness, I want to get it right. (Though we must all remember there is a wikipedia page for "tastes like chicken.") I submitted again, trying to follow the notability guidelines for academics. It's tricky to find documentation of additional awards online, but I believe that Criteria 1a, 1b, 1d, 4a (I cited syllabuses) should all combine to clear the hurdle. I will say it's been wild searching for citations, etc., as you come across extremely similar "ships in the night," like Richard M. Perloff, who had an extremely similar career, just later. Thanks again for your guidance. RJK509 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

🙏 Ldm1954 (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:S. Walter Englander (scientist)

Hello, thank you for pushing me to prove notability and improve the article. I have added dissertation/thesis information (unfortunately they are not available online, but I was able to cite their location at Pitt), brief explanations of hydrogen exchange and its impact on society, have expanded upon his two most notable and prestigious awards, and have added citations for being elected to the Natl Academy of Science and the American Society of A&S. I do believe this hits on many of the notability guidelines for academics. Thanks again. Heyccj (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I am going to approve the draft. I think some more editing is needed as it has some peacock phrases (bragging, or spin without providing information) that others may (probably will) object to. I may edit one or two out to give you an idea, but I don't know enough about him to be confident about doing more. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd really appreciate it. Heyccj (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Ehsan Roohi

Hello, About the draft:Ehsan Roohi, and about his notability, he won the Academy of Science of Iran Award, which is given yearly once to one researcher below 40 years: https://www.isna.ir/news/97111106141/%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87-%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%BE%DA%98%D9%88%D9%87%D8%B4%DA%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%87-%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%DA%A9%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1 https://vpr.um.ac.ir/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=949:2019-01-27-06-29-03&catid=8&Itemid=283&lang=fa https://eng2.um.ac.ir/images/78/golkhatmi.dr.jpg

References for his books: https://press.um.ac.ir/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=915:f-729&Itemid=714&lang=fa https://press.um.ac.ir/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=964:f-781&Itemid=714&lang=fa https://press.um.ac.ir/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=991:f-811&Itemid=714&lang=fa Parisan1342 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Junior awards are not notable. Also, should not try and convince me, you have to make the page notable by itself while not bragging Wikipedia:PEACOCK Ldm1954 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Alexander Greer

I am not sure if I replied in the correct spot before. If you're seeing this a second time, my apologies for the redundancy: Hello! I hope you're doing well. I would like to dispute part of what you wrote: "no major awards or society fellowships." My understanding is that an academic needs to meet one of 8 criteria. One of those criteria is "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." In fact, the draft on Alexander Greer states "From 2020-2022, Professor Greer served as President of the American Society for Photobiology." Given this point that I made here, could the decision be reconsidered? Thank you kindly and I hope you have a nice week. OliverT715 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

To @OliverT715 I agree that being President of the American Society for Photobiology is an important career move, but I would not consider it on a part with major academic societies such as the American Chemical Society or the American Physical Society. I cannot find too much specific information, but it looks like the biannual meetings have something like 100 talks/posters. This is dwarfed by ACS and APS which have thousands of attendees. Hence I am not going to reverse my decision. You can always resubmit and see if someone else disagrees with me, but I would not advise that. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Etsko Kruisinga

Hi There, i appreciate you for reviewing this. i have added more information according to your comments. thx! please let me know if it is fine now. Deondernemers (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It is better, but still short on details. For instance, more articles about his achievements, a source for his PhD thesis etc. in principle all statements must have a source as backup. If not, they should be deleted. Some reviewers may be very strict. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hans Geissel

Hello! Thank you for reviewing and correcting the article for Hans Geissel!

I noticed, you removed the award "DPG Research Grant Canada" with the comment "Minor copy editing". Was this a mistake, or was the citation not sufficient for the entry?

I would also like to link the German translation of the entry https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Geissel , but I have trouble understanding the Wikipedia system how to link a translated article correctly. Can you maybe point me to the correct menu? ^^' Dediggefedde (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation of the DPG grant was that it was just a research grant, rather than a true award. Since he has other major ones I removed it; focusing more on his significant achievements and not diluting them. I might have been incorrect about it's importance, in which case just add it back.

Sorry, I don't know how or even if you should link to the German page. Perhaps ask a question at the tearoom? Ldm1954 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Why no response?

Hello, I would have appreciated, if you at least gave me a response. I am a mathematician but working mostly for the German Wikipedia, I am not that familiar with the English Wikipedia policies. However I disagree with what you said about the notability of Benjamin Schlein. It's not even true what you said, that he only wrote "1" notable paper (see Google Scholar of him). Schlein did some influential stuff like for instance in probability theory he showed (with Terence Tao) universality for an important class of random matrices (the Wigner matrices). I am not an expert on his work in mathematical physics, since I am coming from probability theory. But I would not have written an article about him, if he did not have an impact on mathematics.--Tensorproduct (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Also see the comment in Draft_talk:Benjamin_Schlein by user user:Jähmefyysikko confirming the notability. I am sorry that I have to say that, but I think I can judge much more than you who is a notable mathematician. You come from a different field and I respect your contribution to science. But it's hard to judge articles on mathematics or mathematician for people, that are not mathematicians. Same story I had here on Wikipedia already with my article for Sergei Vasilyevich Kerov. It's just frustration for us mathematicians.--Tensorproduct (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tensorproduct, notability is not something debated on my talk page. The article only cites one of his papers, and has no content as proof; it is the job of the editor who writes an article to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Please note that starter grants are not considered notable. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tensorproduct: similarly for Sergei Vasilyevich Kerov, what proves notability? That article just states his existence, there is nothing demonstrating his impact on the world.

N.B., while both may be notable, no proof. Wikipedia statements without proof should always be deleted, as you know. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

First, you left me no other option, I tried to have a discussion with you but you ignored me. Second, what makes them notable. I would say firstly what they achieved in mathematics, not anything else. Let's take Kerov. Well in probability theory there is a bound called the Vershik-Kerov bound. He was one of the most important Russian probabilist in the time period 1970-2000? He was working at the famous Steklov Institute of Mathematics. And let's talk about Schlein. He is a chief-editor of the journal Journal of Functional Analysis. This is the main journal of functional analysis, do you think any unimportant person becomes there chief-editor? Look at the others main-editors like Cedric Villani. All very famous people. I am sorry, just first study the people or leave it to mathematician to decide.--Tensorproduct (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Yasin Sohret

Hello, Thanks for helping out on the article I created Draft:Yasin Şöhret. I have solved the issue on adding unnecessary citations. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I have tried to correct that and now I think it's up to the required standards. I have tried to add more selected publications that are highly cited to try and sort out the notability issue so as to satisfy WP:NPROF under criteria 1 (I think, forgive me if I am wrong on it). Also I have included some secondary sources on the other topics at least to satisfy the general notability guidelines. I hope I have solved most of the issues. I would really like to hear your input on it. Best regards, Serrwinner (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Serrwinner, the page has been improved, but I doubt that it will pass WP:NPROF under criteria one. He does not have a strong publication record (as yet), and his awards are very junior. (I don't count the top 2% as being very meaningful.) The bar in the English Wikipedia is high because it has people from all countries. If you want a second opinion you can ask others such as @AquaDTRS or go to the tea room for help. Maybe there are interviews of him in newspapers or other articles about him. (It might be those are already there, but in Turkish -- you would need to provide a translation of the title for context.) Those secondary sources mean much more than a list of papers. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I think the best course of action if I understand you well would be to translate the Turkish sources, because from my previous experiences sources like those would be used to demonstrate notability. However I agree with everything else you said. I too don't think it satisfies criteria one, I just took a look at your Google Scholar page and got a glimpse of what you mean. But honestly thank you, I guess I will try and act accordingly. Best regards, Serrwinner (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Serrwinner I moved it back to a draft, and made one minor section title change. I don't feel that I should approve or reject it, I think it should be done by someone else. Please use the dark blue "Submit for review" at the bottom of the large green-grey section. It will then go in a queue and someone will review it.

It has pluses, as he does have some mention in secondary sources. What it does not have as yet is a massive publication record. I think there is a 50% chance it will be accepted, but I should not decide. Good luck! Ldm1954 (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks a lot for your input. I was afraid of adding a lot of publications and only chose a selected few. I thought it would plague the article with only publications not making it exactly encyclopedic. Thank you, I will do as you have directed me. Serrwinner (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't add more of his publications, in fact only include 5-10 at most. Hus weakness is that he does not have that many well cited publications -- reviewers will notice that. The can see from his Google Scholar page. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't draftify articles multiple times. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, draftification as part of NPP should only be done once. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

N.B., translation of the Turkish titles helped a lot. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

C. T. Fisher

I know this is his own university, but CSU in a publicity piece calls Fisher "world-renowned"(https://source.colostate.edu/world-renowned-csu-archaeologist-next-up-in-lecture-series/). Also, isn't his pioneering use of LiDAR in Mesoamerica, a major archaeological region, worth his having a Wik page? Also, his work on La Ciudad Blanca is significant in and of itself.

I don't understand what you are getting at in the last two sentences. For example, the list of archaeologists includes a number of archaeologists with a "born 19??" designation for living archaeologists.Kdammers (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Kdammers For certain the CSU statement cannot be used.

For the others, neither you nor I can call his use of LiDAR or other work as significant. If we did that it would be original research. You have to find other independent sources which indicate that it is, for instance someone citing him as the first person to use it in a review or similar, and describing how imortant it is.

From a brief look the page has already been substantially improved. When it is ready you should resubmit for review, I will leave it to someone else. Please be aware that there are many people who are much, much harsher than I am about judging notability and requiring sources. In a page I worked on I was once challenged to prove the birth date of someone.

In many respects Wikipedia is Guilty until proven innocent (IMHO).

N.B., the list was to give you examples of other pages that you could look at. Just because some of them also have "born 19??" does not make that correct. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Einstein–Oppenheimer relationship

Hello, Ldm1954,

Please do not move an article that is being discussed at AFD. It's disruptive and interrupts the discussion. If an article is Kept, it can be moved but if it is moved during the discussion period, your move will simply be reverted. Thank. you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MKS units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Einstein–Oppenheimer relationship

Hello, Ldm1954,

Please do not move an article that is being discussed at AFD. It's disruptive and interrupts the discussion. If an article is Kept, it can be moved but if it is moved during the discussion period, your move will simply be reverted. Thank. you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robin Vallacher has been accepted

Robin Vallacher, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ldm1954 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft about Mohammed Sultan Al-Buriahi

Hello,

You've rejected our Mohammed Sultan Al-Buriahi article. I understand your message:

I am very concerned about this page. He has an astonishingly high h-factor for someone who finished their PhD in 2019 and a huge publication rate (~400 total in Google Scholar), 29 in 2024 up to Feb 19. If there were awards from major organisations that recognize him then I would acknowledge him as a rising star. Neither the "Rising Star" nor top 2% judge him in the context of his peers. Without this acknowledgement I think we must wait.

It can be seen in the provided Research.com link in the article, he has been selected to "Best Rising Stars of Science in Turkey 2023 Ranking" list in 7th place. They gathered that information from "Microsoft Academic Graph on 21-12-2022.". I really don't understand why you rejected this.

This "Top 2% Scientists Worldwide 2023 by Stanford University" published on Elsevier by Stanford University." is also a question in my mind. In Elsevier page, there is a downloadable huge Excel database which shows literally top 2% scientist. Mohammed Sultan Al-Buriahi's name is also in this list.

As of the message I'm sending to you now, he has "10331" citations. What do you suggest me to do in order to make the editors and you accept this article?

Waiting for your response.

Have a good day. Ugurbaskin (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said, he needs a major awards from the international scientific community that recognizes him. Neither the local Turkish ranking nor the Stanford list are international peer recognition. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The "Top 2% Scientists Worldwide 2023 by Stanford University" published on Elsevier by Stanford University." is peer reviewed and the methodology is cited in PLoS Biology https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384 The lead author also has a page on Wikipedia John Ioannidis. Does Wikipedia have formal citeria for international peer recognition? Where is it? AmyEBHC (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Restored Template

I went through your page hoping to find an example of good practice. I found at least 10 areas where I can ask the same questions you asked, “relevance” et cetera. In addition, it is inappropriate to use one’s personal CV as an “independent” source. In addition, there are non working links on your page. Never the less, I will fix/improve what I can because the quality of the work I do matters. AmyEBHC (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note, I did not write or edit that page, since that would be a clear COI. It has several errors introduced by other editors, for instance nanotwinning, nano surfaces and the statement about my two week trip to China. If you think there are errors I suggest that you add a request to change on the talk page as I wont't edit the page myself. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point, I can work on this next. AmyEBHC (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Maisie Myra Marks

Hello, Ldm1954. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Maisie Myra Marks".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Benjamin Djulbegovic page and unjustified use of template

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages). I corrected the issues and removed the template. You put the template back without checking for corrections or modifying the template.. It also could have been discussed on the talk page as Wikipedia suggests. This is not what you did. In addition I was not the original editor, there were inaccurate links and questionable writing. I replaced this with correct references and edits. It said if you repair then remove the template which I did.

This article needs attention from an expert in Medicine. The specific problem is: There were three fake sources to statements in this article; it would be good to have an expert read this over to check that these were just minor mistakes.. (February 2024)

I fixed all references before you put this up again. No one should have to deal with sock puppets and then this lack of concern or respect. As editors, it is appropriate to be respectful and not make spurious assumptions. On checking your own page, there are problems and dead links. I am an expert in medicine. I earned my doctorate from Oxford. and I am a BMJ research editor. I have checked your history and you have made a habit of leaving negative feedback.

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (February 2024)

It is linked, if you do a search, you will see at least 5 pages that have cited this research and I have linked to many existing pages in the edits which also cite some of this Scientist's work.

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (March 2024)

That is your assumption and not truth, Good intent would be respectfully adding concerns to the talk page, where they could be addressed with collegiality and respect. What you have done lands as bullying and lands as offensive. I have checked other pages you have interacted with and I see the same patterns.

This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (March 2024)

That is a false assumption, and you need to remove this, thank you, AmyEBHC (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

AmyEBHC, please look carefully at the notability guide, WP:NPROF, the guide about peacock WP:PUFFERY and the guide about neutral point of view WP:BLPSTYLE and about sources WP:BLPRS. I have marked a few of the issues with the article on the page already. To be specific and a few more:

• You have multiple unsupported statements or ones without WP:RS which, rigorously, should all be removed:
• "His work on uncertainly was recognized by James Lind Library (2005)" No source, and the library page does not mention this.
• Your reference [8] is broken.
• The whole Education section is unsourced. If I really was being nasty I would have deleted it all.
• His positions from 2017 to 2023 are unsourced.
• The statement "where he trained a cadre of researchers in evidence-based medicine" is WP:PUFFERY.
• His administrative positions at USF are unsourced.
• The sentence "This work demonstrates the logical connection between ..." is unsourced.
• Relevance of statement "Dr. Djulbegovic, a practicing oncologist..." is unclear. As it stands this is unsourced, so comes across as original research
• The Known for section of the infobox (which should be scientist, not person) is way too long. Someone (not me) will almost certainly cut this as inappropriate.
• You can be considered to have a COI with respect to the statement about "Expert Needed", since you have edited so much of it. It would have been better to ask for a second opinion.

By putting in markers and tags I am giving you indications on what needs to be changed. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

N.B. for @AmyEBHC, if you think I am exaggerating then please have a look at the old version of Christian Hegge. Back on 24 Feb I tagged Hans-Christian Hege with needing more sources, on the page as well as via talk and a message to the main author. On March 5th Melcous (who has 115,403 edits and is a rollbacker) deleted all of the Research work section. I would not be surprised if the Edited Books are questioned (wrong format) and the whole article put up for deletion (WP:AfD). Ldm1954 (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, These guides are very helpful. I will go through them and make edits to the page. Once complete, a second opinion would be great. I didn't intend to edit so prolifically, the page was suboptimal, Wiki Medicine says edit boldly, so I did. I have added sources for his positions, my concern is that these pages on universities are dynamic. Is it permitted to use links generated from the internet archive or wayback machine? I will work on each of these points you have raised and revert back. AmyEBHC (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

People frequently use wayback in references. Their problem is the opposite -- they can (will) get obsolete. No free lunch. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I read the guides and made multiple changes. In addition, I worked on following your prompts. I included the address page where it was cited rather than the general site re James Lind. I will ask for a 2nd opinion here as I edited substantially. AmyEBHC (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks much better to me, but there was a very harsh comment made by a very experienced medical editor who should make comments. I do not know enough about the technical details to judge those; I ping'd him on the talk page. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving articles to draftspace

Regarding Andrea Ferrara (astrophysicist) - moving an article to draftspace because it doesn't have an infobox is an abuse of the draftify procedure. The criteria for moving an article to draftspace is set out at WP:DRAFTIFY. Here is the relevant section for an article that does not meet the required standard: 2a. The page is obviously unready for mainspace, for example: 2a-i. is not a reasonable WP:STUB (e.g. has very little verifiable information, or is interchangeable with a short dictionary entry, but the definition is not good) - every day at NPP I see pages on notable topics with minor issues. I fix them. That's how a collaborative project works. AusLondonder (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@AusLondonder, The article exactly matched the criteria "the article does not meet the required standard" as I explained in detail. Please compare your stub to other articles on notable astronomers, I have suggested a few for you. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

N.B., the incorrect infobox was the least of the issues. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not create the page, as should be obvious. You absolutely did not explain in detail how the page did not meet the required standard. In fact, you specifically raised formatting as the issue and requested section headings and an infobox. Those are not issues to justify a move to draftspace. AusLondonder (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

How can you say you explained in detail how the article did not match the required standard? I have seen your talkpage comment after the move to draftspace. AusLondonder (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"The article exactly matched the criteria "the article does not meet the required standard" as I explained in detail." - are you aware of the criteria? Here is the full, entire criteria:

Does not meet the required standard

2a. The page is obviously unready for mainspace, for example: 2a-i. is not a reasonable WP:STUB (e.g. has very little verifiable information, or is interchangeable with a short dictionary entry, but the definition is not good); 2a-ii. or it would have very little chance of survival at AfD; 2a-iii. or it meets any speedy deletion criterion. 2b. The topic appears unimportant, is possibly not worth the effort of fixing, and no great loss if deleted due to expiring in draftspace. 2c. The topic is not a new topic likely to be of interest to multiple people (such as current affairs topics). 2d. The page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor. Older articles should not be draftified. As a rule of thumb, articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitable venue AusLondonder (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPS, WP:ABOUTSELF, and academic biographies

Hi Ldm1954. Thank you for your feedback on the Pankaj Mehta article. I saw that you reinstated the BLP label that I removed. I removed the BLP label because I believed that although some sources are published by the subject's institutions or from ORCID, much of the information is corroborated by external sources and because of the guidelines outlined in WP:ABOUTSELF. I additionally added the subject's personal website as a source so that the WP:ABOUTSELF policy is, in my perception, strictly satisfied. My understanding is that self-published sources are ok if the subject is itself and a few other reasonable criteria are met. The policy states:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

Do you believe this policy does not apply because any of these above criteria are not met? If so, which one and why? I would like to note that I believe criterion 5 is satisfied because of the references to articles from independent sources like a professional society, grant-providing organizations, and multiple popular science magazines. Could you please guide me in how to make the WP:ABOUTSELF policy consistent with the WP:SPS policy for this page? I responded to a comment by User4edits on my own talk page about this if you would like to involve them in this discussion. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response. Magenta.lily (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood why @User4edits reinstated it, and I reinstated it a second time. You should try not to use someone's personal website as it is the least reliable source; anything can be added without oversight. An official university website is one step up, but many consider it tainted as well. (Often universities have a curated page for faculty which I consider secondary as there could be legal consequences to misleading information.)

Use ORCID, Google Scholar, Research Gate etc. Don't use ones such as 11-13 which has no useful information, 10 is obsolete, 9&24 are the same, 6&7 are the same (and have little info), 19 is irrelevant.

In fact this page is a big mess, and needs a proper rewrite. I will refrain from tagging this so you can repair it. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your specific feedback. I think I understand how the article might be improved, but I still do not fully understand why information from a personal website or university page is unacceptable given the policy specified in WP:ABOUTSELF. I would appreciate any thoughts you might have about the validity or applicability of this policy. In the meantime, I will clean up the references you suggest. This is my first biographical article I have created (all others have been about science topics), and I hope to create more about other biophysicists in the future, so your constructive criticism is very helpful, and your time is appreciated.

Magenta.lily (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The reasoning is the same as why Blogs are not used -- they have not been checked for accuracy. It is similar with newspapers; some are considered reputable as they check information, others dont. You need to try and stick with curated (checked) pages.

With university pages content matters as well.

As an example, consider https://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/directory/profiles/marks-laurence.html which is an official page whose content is controlled/curated by Northwestern University, versus http://www.numis.northwestern.edu/Research/Faculty/ which is unrefereed. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I have attempted to improve the page a bit by relying more on the university/departmental pages which are controlled by Boston University and relying more on ORCID and Google Scholar. Additionally, I have converted some lists into prose. Please let me know what you think. Again, your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Magenta.lily (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks OK from a quick check. I am pinging @User4edits here as he reinstated the BLP first, so pro-forma should have a chance to comment. (Plus I am busy today so can check in detail.) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Magenta.lily Not using self-published and self-written sources from personal web pages is COMMONSENSE. Given your understanding of other WP policies and guidelines, and given your presumed relationship with academia, the hesitancy to understand the aforementioned commonsense gives an impression in which you might appear gaming the system. Also see the COI and ownership messages I have left on your talk page. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a standard you are making up. It is not "common sense" that we never use self-published sources in regards to statements about themselves. While we have limits on what can be used from such sources, it is common practice supported by policy that such sources can be used. You seem to be wanting a different set of standards than what Wikipedia actually uses. If you would like to see self-published sources barred, you can of course start an effort to have a policy changed, but this is not the way to do that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Thank you for your message and input in this discussion.

Magenta.lily (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I will make one comment: User:NatGertler, User:User4edits and User:Magenta.lily, this discussion does not belong on my talk page, particularly the recent somewhat personal comments. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)