Ldm1954

Yakiv Pavlenko

Hi Ldm1954 -- I've started looking at this article after the AfD was closed as keep. I'm going to try to move some of the less important bits of Pavlenko's career to the talk page, and see what's left... I think we should also cut the research papers down to a maximum of around five -- I tend to go for two or three for mid-career scientists, and five for retired/deceased scientists, unless the notability is unusually high or the scientist worked in very different areas, but physics might be different? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw that you had started, and I agree about the papers. One benchmark is what NSF allows which is 10. Hence anything from 5-10 is OK with me. I would go for the higher cites, trying to spread them across the years. Let me know if you want a 2nd opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a prune at the papers later based on citations, got to go offline now. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Take a look -- I've reduced to 7 based largely on GS citations, but also taking into account the number of authors, plus the more-recent one referenced in the text as associated with the Damasso et al. paper. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

They look fine to me. One thing, the quote which starts "Red dwarfs has wide developed.." the attribution confused me because I thought from the text that he wrote the article, but they are just quoting him. Maybe tweak the attribution? Ldm1954 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what on Earth that was, I couldn't find an author using Google Translate. We could just delete it altogether? I'm not sure what purpose it is serving. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That he made some comment in or about an article hits no notability. Then I think it is done, except the Video's should probably go at the end under external links. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. The article looks a lot better now. Let us hope that the creator does not decide to edit war; I'll keep it watchlisted for a while just in case. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict, no great surprise but all the fluff is getting added back plus he deleted the talk page material. I reverted both, but I won't be surprised to see a repeat. I don't have admin rights (I don't want them anyway), so over to you. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed there'd been some work on the article while I was asleep but haven't had a chance to look yet. Admins don't have any more say in content areas than editors without the tools but I'll see what I think. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I retained a minor edit he made about the wife, but reverted him adding back the mess of quotes, publications, ex-students etc. I will let you handle the next edits if they occur. I left a polite note on his talk page. N.B., I can't block him, but I guess you could. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I'd count as involved here. I can try adding to your note on their talk. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Infrared non-destructive testing of materials

I agree that this article was not very good at all, but I've removed the PROD and started excising the worst of the material. It'll probably look nothing like the original and may have been better off deleted and remade at active thermography (which is what the article discusses for most of the text, even if it claims to be about IRNDT), which is discussed only in a couple sentences on thermography and looks to have a good amount of literature in the corpus of nondestructive testing reference works on Springerlink. Reconrabbit 20:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me. Ping me again if you want a 2nd opinion on anything. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Materials science

I'm not understanding your removal of Materials science from under "Technology by type" category due to... "per the definition it is a science, not a technology" while it is seems to be ok for Materials science to be under "Building engineering," which is under "Technology by type." Is not Materials science of a higher order than "Building Engineering?" ~~ ELApro (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Where is "Materials Science" under "Building Engineering"? It should not be. That is definitelt an error.. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I found it. Someone who did not have a good enough understanding of the discipline has conflated "Materials" and "Materials Science". There are quite a few pages in the Materials category which belong in MS. I have corrected a few, but I have other calls on my time. Unfortunately the Materials project on WP seems to be defunct, so there are few people checking. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)