User talk:Ldm1954

This is Ldm1954's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

Scott Russell Surasky

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

AndrewApicello (talk · contribs)
- Draft:E. James Petersson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The career award is an early career award. Those do not qualify for #2, this is very well accepted, only major awards such as ACS Fellow or section achievement prizes. Her citations are slightly higher, both number (47 v 43) and total (7176 v 5749). There are other major differences, for instance her highest citation is 480 whereas his is 250.

As I said, he is slightly below the bar, she is above. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Power system reduction

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

Associativity isomorphism

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

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

Nomination of Negative air ions for deletion

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

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

Draft review before pushing live

Hi, can you please review this draft, and then I can submit it for further review? I have also removed excessive information.

Draft:Joseph L. Gastwirth Genuisminds (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. There are a couple of small issues that need to be resolved, I have marked them. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated those edits Genuisminds (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine. In general I do not review the same page twice. (I only do that when they are really bad.) Ldm1954 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your help! Thank you. Genuisminds (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SDM algorithm article

Thank you, @Ldm1954, for your feedback on the SDM algorithm article draft!

Regarding the textbook style: I do understand and support this guideline. The SDM draft does not use imperative language, though. The are step-by-step instructions, but these are only the minimal steps to explain a "hello-world" version. Our goal was to summarise the algorithm and provide illustrative examples to aid understanding. That said, I see how some parts may still come across as overly detailed. We'd appreciate specific suggestions on which passages seem to cross the line into the how-to/textbook style. It would help us to aptly focus the revisions.

Regarding trimming/removing the "#SDM Monte-Carlo Algorithm ..." section. Given your feedback, I realise that perhaps it is the introduction that warrants rewording first? The article describes the SDM algorithm. Thus, this section seems to me to be the very vital piece of information, isn't it? In fact, the Anderson acceleration example you have provided also features: an explanation of all notions needed to define the algorithm, valid program code, and relations to other classes of methods - I see numerous similarities. Also, we have been inspired by several of the sorting-algorithm entries in Wikipedia, where animations + code serve well to intuitively describe the algorithms.

Thanks again for your guidance. Slayoo (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your "goal" can only be to create an encyclopedic article. Hello world is irrelevant in an encyclopedia, as are illustrative examples.

Sorry, I am not paid to give you detailed/specific edits -- Wikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself Ldm1954 (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quick reply. I'm by no means asking for any edits - just an actionable clarification as per which part of the article draft your comment refers to. The suggestion of removing the "#SDM Monte-Carlo Algorithm ..." section from an article on SDM Monte-Carlo Algorithm is puzzling, hence this request for a follow up. Thanks. Slayoo (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SDM Monte-Carlo Algorithm for Coagulation of Particles

Ldm1954 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, it violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I suggest rewrite it, or shall I just delete it? Ldm1954 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revision draft: Filippo Maria Rijli

Hi Ldm1954! Thank you for your feedback. I have revised the draft accordingly by removing excessive citations and unnecessary information, and by placing references after punctuation. The draft has been much improved. I appreciate your input. Vz19 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]