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

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Ldm1954/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ldm1954! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A few specifics would be useful; I will try the Teahouse. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added specifics to your comment on my talk page and to the draft itself. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Ldm1954/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Ldm1954/sandbox. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see validity in some of the comments, for instance the "Unfortunately" in "Unfortunately, towards the end of her first year". However, I do not agree there is anything wrong with "a few months shy of her 17th birthday". Just because it is Encyclopedic does not mean it should be boring. I have seen many people in science argue that everything should be "boring". If you go back and read the giants (Einstein, Gibbs etc) you will see that they did not.

In my opinion "boring" is an excuse for bad writing.

'Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress', attributed to Mahatma Gandhi Ldm1954 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INFORMAL “Just present the sourced information without embellishment, agenda, fanfare, cleverness, or conversational tone.” Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as will the majority of academics in all disciplines. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to disagree, but this is Wikipedia and the guidelines here are different to academia. Theroadislong (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

I note you have edited Laurence D. Marks and are now creating an article which appears to be a biography of a relative. You need to read WP:COI and declare any conflicts .... I would recommend doing so on your user page and on the article(s) where it applies. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Maisie Myra Marks has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Maisie Myra Marks. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Someone thought it appropriate to hack the page, removing vast amounts of background data and, in the process, make a very large number of errors of fact. This was highly inappropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maisie Myra Marks (February 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Velella was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I cannot see where notability lies. Being awarded an MBE is meritorious but not especially notable. Working your way up through a company to be director and establishing industry specific benevolent societies is to be commended but again not an indicator of notability. I am unsure whether this person can be demonstrated to be notable, but I have declined this submission rather than rejected it in case something truly notable emerges.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Maisie Myra Marks and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References 1,5,6,8,9,10,15,16,17,24,29 are Trade Newspapers and Articles from independent sources where she is mentioned, in many cases extensively. Similarly 11 & 18 are books (they are slightly different editions with different material). There is also extensive material in the archives, which includes material on what she did and the significance of her charitable work -- not just the MBE.

Back in the relevant period, 1957-1988 there was essentially no internet, no blogs, the number of newspapers etc was significantly smaller. Hence the number of articles etc is significant. Many sources from that era have not been digitized, or are on microfiche.

If you do a simple Google search of course you will not find much; you will not find much about other notable people of that and earlier eras. You have to do proper research of the sources, which are given in the draft. This cannot be done in a five minute read which the speed of your review indicates took place.

Some things you could (have to) do are: a) Register for a trial subscription at NewspaperArchive.com, then search. b) Go to a copyright library such as the British Library. Unfortunately many sources are not part of their lending collection, but you can search contents; you may have to physically go to the reading room. c) Go to the History of Advertising Trust. Since they are a charity they may charge you £38/hour for a search. d) If you are affiliated with a major university, get assistance from a librarian. That is their job, and they welcome it.

The quote on the Adwomen is primary, so has no reference.

Refs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15-17, 22, 24, 29, 30 are secondary sources

Refs 11, 18 are tertiary sources.

Refs 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20 are archived collections of primary and secondary material, similar to a library.

Refs 22, 23, 31-41 are evidence. Evidence is stronger than any source, as it is not open to question. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wipedia

You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. It appears to be RHEED. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I hope you will do so.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.S Philbrick (Talk) 15:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the page is there, as it now is for others -- I was half way through major edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

If it is true, that we learn humility through accepting humiliations cheerfully (Mother Theresa), then I would like to thank you for allowing me to improve my humility.

Cheerfully yours Klingm01 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I make a complaint that you have confirmational bias and that you have a COI, then it is highly inappropriate for you to respond to the complaint. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks II.: A bit of rigor

Relativistic wavelengths for various accelerating voltages
$V$ [kV]	$\lambda$ [pm]
0.1	122.633
0.5	54.832
1	38.763
10	12.204
20	8.588
50	5.355
100	3.701
200	2.508
300	1.969
400	1.644
800	1.027
1000	0.872
2000	0.504
3000	0.357

Thank you for your effort. Before you further edit Electron diffraction, please read its talk page and justify your claims that the relativistic wavelength stated there is wrong. It will mark a crucial moment for the field revealing that a row of famous names like Carter, Williams, Kirkland, Karlík, De Graef and other established authors have been misleading the whole community for decades. Why? Because they all keep publishing exactly the same numbers and formulas which you keep removing for being incorrect. --88.103.135.201 (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]