User talk:Ldm1954/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why was my page declined?

per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roger_V._Gonzalez

I believe you declined my page and yet I meet at least two of the eight academic-specific criteria and it says you only need to meet one. I meet criterion 3 (Fellow of American Society of Mechanical Engineers) and 5 (Endowed Chair at the University of Texas at El Paso. What is going on and what do I need to do. Rvgonzalez (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The endowed chair is not really relevant as nowadays there are too many of them. The fellowships are and I missed them, my error. It needs some format editing which you should not do, writing and editing pages on yourself is strongly frowned on. I will try and do some cleanup this week then pass it through. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me know what else you may need from me. Rvgonzalez (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Do you happen to know when you will approve the page? Rvgonzalez (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have cleaned up somewhat your page, but you are going to have to do far more.

• Include a COI disclosure on your user page and the Talk page of the article
• Add the title of your PhD to the infobox scientist, and other relevant information
• Add an image
• Provide sources as marked with a citation needed on the draft. These have to be independent, you should not use ones you provided yourself such as blurbs before talks. For instance, use a link to the pdf of your PhD, your commencement etc.

Note: there may be mistakes in what I have changed Ldm1954 (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi ... here is the situation. The Society launched this effort to bring recognition to fellows and hired an entity (American Wiki Editors) https://www.americanwikieditors.com/ to do this, and they have gone defunct (no number works, chat doesn't work, no responses to emails), and they left the project as is, and that is why I am not, as a non-experienced wiki developer, trying to bring this to a close. I hope that makes sense. Thus, several of the points you bring up like COI etc are new and unknown to me. What do you suggest? Rvgonzalez (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Plus, in Awards, I am a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, not Metallurgical Rvgonzalez (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I suspect the society may have been scammed. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

So, what should I be doing now since it is looked upon as my doing my own bio? What is your recommendation? Rvgonzalez (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Ldm1954,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Graham Moorehead

How dare you accuse someone of lying about this subject's academic career! You clearly did not check the citations that PROVED HIS ACADEMICS. You should do yourself a favor and bone up on the definition of legal defamation in a public forum. I demand you remove your defamatory comments immediately, or be subject to further action. Act professional or retire from this work...I will not respond further. 2601:586:D021:1539:7460:63ED:6A0C:4453 (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to threaten legal action on Wikipedia. See the page Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you feel like you have been the target of defamation, you can read the page Wikipedia:Libel. Please remember to be civil and assume good faith on the part of other users. HenryMP02 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 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) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Havana syndrome 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 03:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Links to user pages and sandboxes

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at X-ray diffraction. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RVGonzalez Page

Hi LDMI1954 ... I think I found how to start a thread here for the page that was scammed that was started for me.

I asked a question via the previous discussion. But I presume you want it here? Rvgonzalez (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Etsko Kruisinga

Howdy, on my previous submission you mentioned to add more about his accomplishments and I have done so. Because you might be more familiar with this because of past review would you be available to review? thx. Deondernemers (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Some thoughts, with caveats that what I see is based upon Google's translation of the Dutch.

• https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/anro001bioe01_01/krui005.php has more information. For instance you could add one or two of his better known books.

Mention his grammar contributions in both Dutch & English

• Add information from that article about the archives -- useful to flesh him out.
• Do a Google search. I found https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846270.71 ; I currently don't have it but it looks like a decent review where you can find material. Also https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(83)90004-9, there seems to be a fair amount of material.

It takes work! Ldm1954 (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright! I will put that in tomorrow or whenever I find some time. Thank you again Ldm1954 Deondernemers (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: I did not check your changes -- I should have. Much, much better than before. I think you can do a little more, maybe also add an infobox with an image as there seem to be public domain ones around (or ones you can upload to Wikipedia). Then resubmit. I won't review the resubmittal, but I will keep an eye on it in case you get a weird review (they happen). Ldm1954 (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Professor Jiann-Wen Woody Ju’s Wikipedia page

Dear Professor Marks:

I extend my sincere gratitude for your invaluable comments and contributions to Professor Jiann-Wen Woody Ju’s Wikipedia page. Your insights have been instrumental in shaping the edits I am currently making. Professor Ju is also searching for additional evidence to substantiate the records on the Wikipedia page.

I have a query regarding the inclusion of certain awards and elections, particularly for the newly ones that have not yet been updated on the respective organization's webpage. However, we possess proof such as the Letter of Election from the President of the organization. Considering Wikipedia's requirement for publicly accessible sources, would such documentation suffice for verification purposes?

Thank you immensely for your time and assistance.

Best regards,

User: zhuwenli Zhuwenli (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Since there have been so many declines already I think you have to get it right the next time, or reviewers may get fed up and decline with no option to resubmit. This means that you have to wait for the organization to post it, or the university to announce it publicly.

N.B., remember that awards must be major. An APS fellow is considered major as they have many thousands of members. A small conference or an NSF creativity award are not really major. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Reference on Timeline of crystallography

What is the work being referenced as "Hirsch et al" on the Hans Boersch line from this revision (linked here) of the article Timeline of crystallography? I saw the reference error appear in the weekly listing. Reconrabbit 18:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Clemens Burda

Hi there! Thank you for your constructive criticism of my submission. As you instructed, I have added relevant citations and removed all the peacocks. In addition to that, I also added a major award instead of the junior awards you mentioned.

Please, let me know. Sigma Spurion (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely much better. It would help if you can find sources beyond Case Western for him, as some will consider his university a (weak) primary source. Also, while AAAS is a useful award, I am not so convinced that it is that notable.

I won't review the new draft, I will leave that to someone else. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fiveling

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fiveling 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) 19:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Re removal of {{notability}} on Data-driven astronomy

Forgive me if I'm a bit blunt professor, but the issues you raised on my talk are grounds for a {{tone}} tag, or a more specific tag for the same issue like {{essay-like}} or {{research paper}}, and if there's a specific proposal document that it were identical to, {{close paraphrasing}} or {{copyvio}}. They are not an issue that concerns Wikipedia:Notability, which is not something that deals with the current state of the article (WP:NEXIST). That there are courses on the subject is a strong (albeit not perfect) indication there is sufficient published material to develop such a course. The fact that such material has not been properly included is immaterial for the issue of {{notability}}. The actual article being written on a specific project on that topic wouldn't make the topic non-notable any more than if we replaced the contents of another article with the contents of a random paper on the topic, say redshift survey and Berti, Maria; Spinelli, Marta; Viel, Matteo (2024-03-23). "21 cm intensity mapping cross-correlation with galaxy surveys: Current and forecasted cosmological parameters estimation for the SKAO". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 529 (4): 4803–4817. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae755. ISSN 0035-8711.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link), as an example. The notability tag is not appropriate, because it does not identify the actual issue, which is that of article content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Request on 03:43:45, 11 May 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Eppursimuove1492

• Eppursimuove1492 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Atoms All the Way Down (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for the review! Aside from referencing my own peer-reviewed journal article (which I flagged for COI), the draft also references an in-depth article published about the subject by Popular Mechanics, which is a nationally-renowned, independent and credible source. Here is a link to their article (since it may be behind a paywall): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fij6yxx7hexr9twlmyx8q/What-If-the-Big-Bang-Never-Happened_-A-Controversial-Theory-Explained.pdf?rlkey=ry2es2n70nak87pnx254rteoh&dl=0

Does the draft still need more? Thanks in advance

Eppursimuove1492 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for established information which has been discussed/cited by multiple sources. It is not a site for describing new ideas, there must be significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) by multiple sources, not just one, and topics must have been notable with sustained coverage (WP:SUSTAINED). To date these do not exist for this topic and until they do it should not be in Wikipedia, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Your advert tag on Anaxam

Can you specify, why you think this article contains content written like advertisment? I am a paid contributor in this case, which I disclosed on my user page, but tried to keep the information on this institution descriptive, sober and factual. J. Berndorff (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The page is definitely way better than many I have seen. However, it still has a bit of sales "spin", for instance the sentence:

"To ensure the best possible, realistic test conditions, ANAXAM adapts the measurement procedure to their clients’ needs with specialist equipment"

I must have been in a bad mood that day. I have removed my tags. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. I will improve the sentence nonetheless. Best regards! J. Berndorff (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Your unfounded allegation that I misquote other editors

Re this edit [1] of yours, I responded as follows [2];

Strong objection: If you have evidence that I "misquote other editors", please provide the details, or remove your statement. With regard to the word "politely", how about walking the talk, rather than making unqualified assertions?

Either remove your allegation or provide supporting evidence. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

About S.Y.H. Su article

Thank you for visiting the article and your comments. I will try to dig out more infomation as you suggested.

I want to point out S.Y.H Su commenced his career in 1967 much before the age of internet. He retired quite a while ago. That is a signficant disadvantage in terms of the Google Scholar H index. Also, as you know, in some fields, the paper production and citation count can be significantly lower than in other fields. Incidentally he added Stephen to his name sometime after finishing his PhD. Thanks. Malaiya (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Pings

Just to let you know that unless something has changed recently, pings are only sent when the link is added in the same edit as your signature, so I only saw this edit because the page was on my watchlist. This tripped me up several times, so I thought I’d pass it along to you. YBG (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ronald Mathias, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MBE.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Eli Jerby

Hi, on behalf of Prof. Eli Jerby, please read and consider the following message. "To the Editor @Ldm1954: Beyond rectifiable editing and style issues, the editorial remarks posted in the public talk page of the entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Jerby may hint a more fundamental objection. If this indicates indeed an unconditional, a-priori rejection of this content, I may only request to entirely remove this entry asap from Wikipedia. Thank you, Eli Jerby". I may note that the entry was written in cooperation with Prof. Jerby, as part of my intensive work to add and expand entries about Israeli academics; nevertheless, I got (and will not get) no benefit from him for this work. קוונטום דוץ (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple different editors have been saying that the pages you are creating have problems. Listen to them. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't recall that I asked you to educate me. קוונטום דוץ (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Help needed to fix the Wiki page

Vladimir Lumelsky here: In response to Ldm54 comments on my unfinished Wiki page: you said, you need proofs, say on my being the journal's founding editor-in-chief or my former Yale Univ. professorship - but how and where can I add this information? Say, regarding my journal editorship, the journal's cover's backpage says that very clearly - can I send you or put in a photo of it - if so, how, is it enough? For my Yale professorship, after your comment I've called Yale, they sent me an email confirming that fact, with the time range - how can I get to you this proof? I'd much appreciate your response. Thank you. Lumelsky (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't prove to me, you have to prove to readers.

• For the editorship you put in an appropriate journal cite.
• For Yale their email is no good as this is not verifiable by all readers. Maybe use wayback and find an old page they have that shows you, or some conference announcement.

Ldm1954 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Editing the Article on Metal Casting Simulation

Dear Professor Laurence Daniel Marks,

On June 10th, you left a comment on my article "Metal Casting Simulation", suggesting that if no one else reviews it, I should inform you, and you might be able to assist with its publication. The article is currently in draft mode, and I have incorporated all your recommendations.I would be very grateful for your involvement and assistance in this matter.

With best regards, @Poligoncast

Poligoncast (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fiveling

The article Fiveling you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fiveling for comments about the article, and Talk:Fiveling/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FuzzyMagma -- FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Professor, I wonder if I can pick your brain around this article http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2022.103351 (figure 6). Does it relate to fiveling and the authors did not figure that out, or I am just confused? FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Give me a few days please -- travelling in southern Australia. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma, their section 4.4.1 is all fivelings and friends such as the related Ic; as you thought they did not make the connection. You can find particles such as their bi-icosahdron of Fig 14 in Journal of Crystal Growth 54(1981) 433—438 & 61(1983) 556—566. I also published similar growth in Thin Solid Films, 136(1986) 309 315. Whether it is Ic growth as they suggest or Dh/poly particles is not clear to me; HREM would help.

N.B., need a good Ic page on WP, Todo list.

N.N.B., the idea of icosahedra etc in liquids is quite old, older than many of their cites. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Professor. I think the novelty is that these are not observable in wrought austenite but now being observed in different FCC additively manufactured alloys including Nickel. FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The standard rationale for these shapes is surface energy anisotropy, as against the liquid phase ordering they mention. I have only dabbled in AM, so I am not sure how to get anisotropy, as I did not think the undercooling was high enough. If there is impurity surface segregation that might work. Evidence?

N.B., such discussions might be better off WP. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nonmetal hatnote

I've had an interaction over Nonmetal already and I concluded the hatnote was correct but the article has the wrong name, see Talk:Nonmetal#Nonmetal_elements?. It's basically an article like say Group 3 element about some elements. The chemistry content is ok but the rest is just a pile of factoids about some elements. Since there are a couple of committed editors involved I decided to move on. Some day I will work on nonmetal (physics) and look at the issue again. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. I just went through cutting out some clear errors and added some tags to Nonmetal. Removing a paragraph/sentence here are there does not need to be first raised in talk unless it is contraversial.

The Nonmetal (physics) page is awful. Maybe we should have "Nonmetallic phases" and just rewrite and rename. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The nonmetal (physics) stub was added last week, I believe in response to my complaint that the topic article nonmetal should either include physics or be renamed "nonmetal elements" with an additional "nonmetal (physics)". Johnjbarton (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The general topic of the article is fine and standard chemistry; I agree with you that they wander way off topic and have added a long list to the talk page. You will see that I included your term for it in the 1st sentence.

I rewrote the stub which is now Nonmetallic compounds and elements. Feel free to add to it or change it. Later some of the links to Nonmetal can be changed. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

N.B., you may want to comment on my RfD to move Nonmetal back to Nonmetal (chemistry), perhaps in an hour or so. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Good luck with your efforts. Topics related to periodic table, nonmetals, metalloids are often the domain of editors who are rather territorial and do not subscribe to contemporary views (say, Shriver and Atkins) of chemistry and materials science. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Smokefoot: Periodic table and Metalloid are encyclopedic FA articles, based on reliable sources rather than personal views lacking WP:NOTABILITY.

I'm attempting to apply the same approach to Nonmetal despite the non-encyclopedic views of OPs. Wait! "Great God, could it be(?)": Shriver & Atkins are mentioned in both Metalloid and in Nonmetal!

--- Sandbh (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Sandbh: please keep it up with Shriver and Atkins. A good resource for learning.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Ldm1954 :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Since I noticed you reviewed the mithril article

As you saw, I wrote a question here, and then deleted it. :)

However, this may amuse you. Looking through the latest volume of posthumous notes, it seems like Tolkien in his very late "de-mythicising" phase may have considered an unusual way to solve the problem that all elements that could plausibly fit Gandalf's description (if you squint and assume "make of it a metal" involves alloying) would not be available to a medieval-tech society. From "Elvish Reincarnation", c. 1959 (published in "The Nature of Middle-earth"), we have the following quotes from in-universe loremasters: it can thus happen that in comparing a quantity of one nassë with another equal quantity of the same nassë the subtle in skill may find that the one quantity contains únehtar (the smallest quantities possible in which the interior pattern that distinguishes it from other nassi is exhibited) varying somewhat from the norm ... It would rather be that iron was changed into something else, and became another nassë, whether by force external applied to it, or by its own instability. Though in the case of certain nassi that appear “by nature” to be thus “unstable”, breaking up or changing their inner patterns normally under like conditions...

As noted by the editorial footnotes, this sounds a whole lot like an Elvish understanding of atomic theory, isotopes, and radioactivity being transmutation (with both artificial and natural radioactivity being considered). So, maybe I shouldn't have been worrying about the practicalities of getting aluminium after all. Rather I should've wondered if Eregion and Moria working together could've gotten around to plutonium before Sauron came. I guess, in this less magical-mythical conception, LOTR was extremely post-apocalyptic. :D

(Seriously speaking, I doubt this idea would've been taken up. It only seems to be in this one unfinished essay, and parts of it involving Elvish reincarnation are specifically contradicted by later essays. But it amuses me that Tolkien ever considered such a conception at all.) Double sharp (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting comments. Yes, I did review Mithril; I definitely enjoy Tolkien although I confess I have not got involved in the fan discussions. It was relaxing to review something where no claims of "I am right and the rest of you are wrong" were involved.

One comment. When I read the section you quote there might also be a reference to changing the microstructure by mechanical, heat and (my speculation) magic. When a blacksmith is heat treating and quenching they are setting up specific structure at the 10-100nm scale without changing the overall chemical composition; the article heat treatment is not a bad start. Understanding this was one of the early successes of metallurgy, and there would have been people around at Leeds/Oxford who would have known this. The Damascus steel article is decent, and maybe George Martin's Valerian steel is (my speculation) a hybrid of Damascus steel and mithril. Not too implausible based upon what I see in a quick search on details from a Game of Thrones fan site, and it seems that this idea is not new to me. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I like your reading! That would preserve únehta as having to mean "atom" in Quenya etymologically, while accurately describing polymorphism and how different lattice structures are stabilised at different temperatures. Though your idea gives me a thought: might it also be possible to use magic to drive a reaction to the desired equilibrium? Suddenly mithril as aluminium or vanadium seems to be a valid possibility again. :) (Also, it gives me the thought of Fëanor with his fiery spirit singing up metallic sodium from baking soda. What fun. Seriously, I guess it must not be that easy.)

Personally, those are the two choices among real elements that I like, since they fit Gandalf's description: something lighter than steel, that is malleable on its own, but acts as a hardening and anti-corrosion agent when alloyed with steel. Al would fit very well with re-enchanting the most mundane of all metals, and V was the key trace element that made Damascus steel so unique. But considering that it seems to be rare outside Moria, maybe V is after all the better stand-in for fannish purposes, since it tends to be widely scattered and concentrated deposits are uncommon. Galvorn as Ta is an interesting thought for a fannish stand-in: it is dark, malleable, and hard as it should be per the Silmarillion description, though I'd hate to actually have to use it as armour. (Though, do we need to? The Silmarillion was published posthumously and that armour is not mentioned in every version. Anyway, I don't mean to claim that these are the "correct" identifications or anything like that. Just that they seem good enough to use as stand-ins for fannish purposes as a kind of extended in-joke.)

There's one other late essay published in that volume that has an interesting implication on the state of Elvish chemistry as Tolkien may have seen it. From the discussion "Fate and Free Will": the Eldar would have said that for all Elves and Men the shape, condition, and therefore the past and future physical development and destiny of this “earth” was determined and beyond their power to change, indeed beyond the power even of the Valar to alter in any large and permanent way. (They distinguished between “change” and redirection. Thus any “rational [?will-user]” could in a small way move, re-direct, stop, or destroy objects in the world; but he could not “change” [them] into something else. They did not confuse analysis with change, e.g. water/steam, oxygen, hydrogen.) Probably the Doylist reason behind why H₂O is given as the example is that it's one of the most well-known chemical formulae. But it has interesting Watsonian implications, because historically we spent a whole lot of time getting combustion backwards with phlogiston, and this implies that the Elves had things the right way round. The essay "Dark and Light" from the same volume suggests that Elvish astronomy was also advanced, since it says that their picture before meeting the Valar was geocentric only as regards the Sun, Moon, and certain stars (“companions of the Sun” or wayward stars = our planets). This sounds a lot like a Tychonian system if they thought the planets were specifically companions of the Sun, which is the best one can do without having Newton's theory or being able to observe stellar parallax. Putting these two nuggets of information together, the Elves look almost like medieval folks who kept guessing as right as they plausibly could scientifically. Maybe this is the result of the loremasters having foresight, which leads to thoughts about how Tolkien seems to have intended them as his take on theologically unfallen humans. Ah well, it's all good fun taking this too seriously. :) Double sharp (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

They asked Maxwell's demon to help... Ldm1954 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so that's how the Rings were preventing and slowing decay. :-P Double sharp (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Macro Social Work

Thanks very much for not rejecting the submission of this draft. I added many new sources and expanded the article description and added two more subsections. Hope that the article might pass the next stage. Thanks for your review. @Maikarnold Maikarnold (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks better. I won't review it a second time, so good luck with it when you resubmit. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

{{sources exist}}

I think you don't understand what {{sources exist}} is for. You're using to mean "there are sources that can be used to expand this article" – that's true of basically every article on this site. It is about notability: Use this template if the article has no references or if there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article, and you or another editor have determined that there are sufficient sources available to be cited. It is for articles with insufficient references to prove WP:GNG but where you have searched and found enough sources that exist to prove notability. What you might want instead is {{refideas}}, which is added to the talk page. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, nope, that is exactly why the tags were added. In both cases there are way, way too few inline sources to support the material in the article. It is not about notability, as it says:

An editor has performed a search and found that sufficient sources exist to establish the subject's notability. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

For certain {{refideas}} would not be relevant. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Then you're looking for {{more sources needed}} or just {{citation needed}}. Sources exist is not the right tag here. Cremastra (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. 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) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Noble metal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Element.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Polymetallic ore has been accepted

Polymetallic ore, 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) 15:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

FARC

To editors Johnjbarton and Smokefoot:

The page Heavy metal (elements) has progressed from "review" to "removal" status. According to WP:FAR at this state either Delist or Keep is now voted on -- I leave the vote to you. The page is currently at the top of WP:FARC, although it may move down. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

APS Fellows workaround

APS Fellow listings have been archived through May 2023 at the Wayback Machine. For last names beginning with L, this listing loads faster than the entire alphabetical list! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Some drafts

I saw that you recently moved two articles I had created to the draft space. I will improve them and then request that they be moved to the main space. On the other hand I take this opportunity to ask about the Draft:Gerard Gertoux, if it is ready. An editor told me twice that it was not, but on the third time, he told me that, according to his criteria, it was ready. But he said he would not get involved anymore, and he preferred someone else to give his opinion. Thanks for your help and your valuable time. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to read, then re-read the guide in WP:BLP and also WP:NPROF.

For the two pages I draftified, neither prove notability. What you have is a brief description of the person, but nothing that goes to the criteria in WP:NPROF. You need to show notability, without getting into bragging (WP:PEACOCK). You have to convince a reader (not me, and not here) that they are notable, and include some interesting details about them.

The other page is far more complex. For certain I can only give a little information, as the issues with this page are far from what I consider my area of expertise. (The two pages I draftified were of academics in physics, which I feel comfortable with.}

That said, the questions about notability again matter. You have an extensive description of him and his career, but you don’t hit why there should be a page. Why do you have a long list of his published works --- which matter and which don’t?

You are also not writing “Neutral Point of View”. For instance in your second sentence you have

“Gertoux is one of the albeit minority who defended that one of the several ancient vocalizations of the tetragrammaton..”

A NPOV wording would be more like

“Gertoux argued that one of the ancient vocalizations of the tetragrammaton…”

When you use “albeit minority” and “defended” you are making a judgement, what is called “Original Work” WP:OR – you cann do that. Go through the article carefully and remove opinions.

I do not know the area, so I cannot judge. I suggest asking at the Tea Room for help. Good luck. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bitcoin 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 22:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)