User talk:Russ Woodroofe

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Greetings! Thanks for your corrective measures at Michael D. Aeschliman‎. The same sock/COI promoter from that article also authored Conrad Hughes. What do you think of both subjects' actual notability? JFHJr (㊟) 22:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JFHJr: Straight up GNG looks a bit unlikely. Aeschliman is working in a low citation field, so it's a little hard to make a case for NPROF with citations. That leaves WP:NAUTHOR, as is typical for someone working in a "book" field. I see one authored book, and an edited volume on Google Books. The authored book looks to have several reviews, but I didn't quickly see reviews on anything else. From this quick look, I think that the most likely outcome of an AfD discussion would be a redirect to a stub on the notable book per WP:BLP1E, with deletion or keep being also possibilities. Hughes is hard to search for because of the common name. NPROF similarly looks unlikely, NAUTHOR possible. The article suggests that there are reviews of Educating for the Twenty-First Century, but I didn't quickly find them. The socking gives one pause. Anyway, in short and from a quick look, notability for both appears likely to hinge on NAUTHOR, and on whether multiple reviews of multiple books may be found. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Your reply has confirmed for me that at least the notability tag belongs. I'm not sure if I'll line these putts up for AfD this weekend, but once I'm back at a desktop, maybe I'll have an opportunity. I really appreciate your time; thank you again. JFHJr (㊟) 23:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recording here for my future convenience the AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael D. Aeschliman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Hughes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you again for your feedback here and at AfD for the Aeschliman article. I've come across another apparently similarly situated academic article: Michael Bauman. Because he shares his first and last names with at least one pretty-well cited academic, I'm finding it difficult to get what looks like a reliable h-index. Any feedback from you would be greatly appreciated, your time permitting of course. What do you make of this one's academic citations? Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 21:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JFHJr, I can see that looking in Google Scholar for citations isn't so easy here. But anyway, in many/most areas of the humanities, citation counts are on the low side anyway, and NAUTHOR is a more useful guideline. For this, I'm looking for several reviews, not all of the same book. (If they're all of the same book, then per WP:BLP1E, we're probably better off having an article on the book; edited volumes or highly coauthored works should be viewed a little more skeptically.) So more or less the equivalent of two notable books. A good trick is to do an advanced search on JSTOR, and click the "Reviews" checkbox. Doing so, I found two reviews of an edited volume [1] [2] and three reviews of authored works [3] [4] [5]. There might be a few more reviews. The presidency of the Evangelical Philosophical Society is unsourced, but might pass WP:NPROF C6, and probably at least contributes somewhat to notability. I think this one would be most likely pass an AfD discussion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated! JFHJr (㊟) 14:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Russ Woodroofe. Thank you for your work on Bernd Wegner (mathematician). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modified "primorial" method, called   nabla-deltorial

A modification of the "primorial" method was created, called nabla-deltorial, symbolically designated as ∇Δ(pₙ), and although the initial measurements of the "primorial" were ambitiously aimed at breaking (among other things) also cipher codes, it is still far from that. However, factoring large numbers with divisors of "intermediate" size, i.e. not too high - is supposed to go "surprisingly" smoothly.

The "paper" is available here: https://www.1universe.gpe.pl/prime/deltorial.html

I will soon start writing an entry about it on Wikipedia, its name will be nabla-deltorial ∇Δ      - I recommend it to your attention, and greetings to the titans of work...

~~~~ BaSzRafael (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BaSzRafael, the issue was WP:OR. I do not see any likelihood that this issue can be addressed in this instance. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that you removed a mention of sexual abuse here. The original Dutch article talks about "Anthony L." who was part of Team Scheire - cf Dutch page https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Scheire. It is 100% clear to every person living in Belgium that this is indeed Anthony Liekens. He assaulted a 11 year old and was convicted for it as being guilty, and I think that's worth a mention in an online encyclopedia. 2A02:1812:2C0F:1B00:484D:8495:1D0A:262E (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP editor. Yes, the situation was discussed at some length on our Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard [6]. Just as Belgium appears to have strict privacy laws regarding what can and cannot be printed in a newspaper, Wikipedia has strict rules about what can and cannot be included in a Biography of a Living Person (or BLP, in Wikipedia parlance). We need reliable sources that mention the subject by name. It was 100% clear to everyone in that discussion that Anthony L. was Anthony Liekens, but the the consensus was that we could not include the material with the sourcing that we could find. I spent a fair bit of time looking for sources we could use during the discussion (as I tend to agree that would be worth mentioning), and did not find anything that sufficed. I am dealing with a family emergency right now, and don't have much time this week. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply and explanation, and for linking the relevant discussion. I hadn't seen that yet. Wishing you strength with your family emergency! 2A02:1812:2C0F:1B00:A0A8:9122:919:D574 (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack. Thank you. The OP, Monophile, mentioned you and did not notify you, so I'm doing that now. They have since been blocked for 48 hours but the section's still open so far. NebY (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we should not be surprising users with James Bryant Conant Award. Maybe a mention of the award could be added to the target page with a good ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I agree, and will try to address, but am just coming off a trip, and will have limited Wikipedia time for a day or two.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: I added an award section to the ECS article, and changed to redirect to that. The award isn't independently notable, but not everything in an article about a notable topic needs to be itself notable, and the award does seem to be moderately prestigious, and worth mentioning in a biography of an award recipient. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]