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: 30 days

New page reviewer granted

Hi Ldm1954, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! – Joe (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian journal and pentagonal pyramid

@Ldm1954. Thanks for the sources you gave it to me in Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1. Sadly, I cannot understand the Russian words. So, do you mind if you elaborate to me? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr, I got tied up with a review paper plus being on holiday, hence the slow response. I did not look at the Russian paper well enough. While it says "pentagonal pyramid" (PP) it is not really about that. I know the authors work, it is OK but not relevant here.

Some links:

https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43111 -- talks about PP units in solidification
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-021-01020-4 -- mentions PP in building icosahedral structures
https://doi.org/10.1080/10273660500149570 -- David Wales on PP building blocks
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14078 -- more PP as subunits
https://doi.org/10.1107/S0108767306022227 -- some crystallography, might be translatable to topology, beyond my competence
https://www.freemathhelp.com/forum/threads/60-sided-geodesic-dome.130899/ -- PP on faces
https://github.com/nbhr/geodome -- may not be useful, but see later
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12040556 -- Note Fig 5, there may be a lot here
https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256805785771907.html?gatewayAdapt=glo2usa4itemAdapt -- PP tent (why not)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6205497/ -- mainly the Caspar and Klug

Note: Caspar and Klug got the nobel prize for their work on icosahedral viruses.

There is a connection between PP units and solidification which is known, the idea being that they are one of the non-periodic units in liquids near the solidification temperature. There is also a connection to icosahedra as in viruses and geodesic domes. In both there is a hexagonal (nominally planar) mesh and 12 pentagonal units which give curvature. (You will have to translate that into math-speak and simple-speak.) The pentagonal units may be either PP or pentagons depending upon the number of struts. They are also sometimes (by me and many others such as that Russian paper) referred to as disclinations. Another term which may need translation to math-speak.

Feel free to ping me for more, remembering that while I have collaborated with a mathematician my math is all intuition (not rigor). Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for so many sources you gave, but I think one topic about the self-assembly is enough. Yet, the Russian article seems attract my attention to do a research currently. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Schamel method

Hello, Ldm1954. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Schamel method".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 12:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit, that is not my draft, at most I draftified it. From Schamel method it looks like @Hey man im josh merged some draft content into Nonlinear dispersion relation a month ago, maybe leaving the draft behind although the history does not seem to reflect any of this. Not a big issue so long there is no credit for edits being lost. I certainly contributed zero to either page. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry then @Ldm1954, this is just a regular standard message and not specifically targeted. It just goes to the page's creation, which, in this case, was you because of my merge. The "first" (last) message that wasn't merged was a decline of a draft, which was performed by you. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I only responded because I saw that there was no mention of a merge at Nonlinear dispersion relation. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell L.R. Walker

Greetings, thank you for your help on the Mitchell L.R. Walker page. There is a note at the top of the Mitchell L.R. Walker page that I'd like removed. I think it should be removed because I've removed promotional information. I also updated the wiki Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering page with his information. I don't know who created that page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Institute_of_Technology_-_Daniel_Guggenheim_School_of_Aerospace_Engineering but it had the interim chair and now it has the current chair. Please tell me if I need to do anything else to the page to have the note removed. Thank you, again. Monique Waddell (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isidoro Orlanski

Hi @Ldm1954. I am wondering what you meant by "significant statements" when you left the following comment on our draft: "You need to include sources to verify all significant statements, including his prior positions. He might be notable enough, but the page needs to be fixed first to meet Wikipedia to verification standards." Please let me know where exactly -- preferably down to the word -- sources are needed. Thank you. E00nyc (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the relevant pages WP:NPROF, WP:V, WP:MOS. It is not my job to tell you what to do, also read WP:BURDEN. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. 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) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top AfC Editor

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
		In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hajo Leschke

Dear Ldm1954,

thank you for your helpful critique and advice concerning the Draft:Hajo_Leschke. I have resubmitted a revised and extended version (now including many references) to resolve issues. For clarification please read the following comments:

I have not chosen the "5 to 10 best" publications of Leschke, because, I think, this can be done seriously only by himself or, better, by the scientific community. Therefore I decided to chose (now) 10 "selected publications since 2000". They appeared in rather prestigious journals and, as it happened, I am quite familiar with most of them, see the new section "Selected research achievements". He also has an invited contribution to the Memorial Volume for Harold Widom (1932–2021) (see [14] in the resubmission).

The total citation number of the 10 publications is about 450 according to Google Scholar and the newest ones are just getting more and more citations, some of them being highly influential. If this number is considered to be "not high", it should be considered that the publication and citation rates are typically higher in experimental than in theoretical/mathematical physics. Moreover, many theoretical physicists have the annoying tendency to ignore rigorous results for a long time as being either "obvious" or as "too mathematical". In contrast, the value of rigorous results in theoretical physics can hardly be overestimated, because they may confirm or rule out promising intuitive ideas and numerical computations. Nevertheless, to this day Roger Penrose is the only mathematical physicist having received the Nobel Prize in physics (2020).

Leschke's early awards Studienstiftung and Siemers-Preis (prize) are not routine funding because one cannot apply for it oneself.

I know that Leschke did not accept offers to become "head of department" or "chief editor of a journal", because he considered himself not to be efficient enough for such mainly administrative jobs. Two exceptions: He was a dedicated member of the advisory board of the Annalen der Physik and in charge of the physics library of the FAU for more than a decade.

Leschke is well established in the international community of mathematical physicists which includes the famous Michael Aizenman, Abel Klein, Elliott H. Lieb, Leonid A. Pastur, and Barry Simon (his MathSciNet-collaboration distance to each of them is "2"). His work is cited not only in scientific journals, but also in many textbooks or monographs, for example in:
- Gert Roepstorff: Path-integral approach to quantum physics 1994
- Barry Simon: Functional integration and quantum physics, 2nd edition 2005
- Konstantin Efetov: Supersymmetry in disorder and chaos 1997
- Fritz Haake: Quantum signatures of chaos, 2nd edition 2001
- Georg Junker: Supersymmetric methods in quantum, statistical physics and solid state physics, 2nd edition 2019
- Peter Stollmann: Caught by disorder–Bound states in random media 2001
- Victor Chulaevsky and Yuri Shulov: Multi-scale analysis for random quantum systems with interaction 2014
- Michael Aizenman and Simone Warzel: Random Operators–Disorder effects on quantum spectra and dynamics 2015
- Toufik Mansour and Matthias Schork: Commutation relations, normal ordering, and Stirling numbers 2016
- Thomas L. Curtright, David B. Fairlie, and Cosmas K. Zachos: A concise treatment on quantum mechanics in phase space 2019

My summary:

Leschke is clearly more successful and accomplished in research and teaching than an "average professor" and has gained the international notability required to justify an entry in the English Wikipedia.

Best regards, Cptcall Cptcall (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here does not do anything to help make him verifiably notable. Information must be on the page, and cannot include WP:PEACOCK (bragging). It does not matter, for instance, why he did not become dept head or who cited him. Please carefully read both WP:BURDEN and WP:NPROF.

N.B., it appears that you know him. Please see read WP:COI, that is important. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]