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

Michael Woodroofe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thread with User:Vycl1994

It seems that another editor has created William Kantor in mainspace by translating the article from German Wikipedia. Pertinent information at Draft:William Kantor, created by you, can be moved to the mainspace article. Then, I suggest turning the draft into a redirect. Vycl1994 (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I saw that the article had appeared. I'd gone through AfC for my draft, which is how the conflict occurred. (I tried to withdraw it from AfC, but am not positive that I did that correctly.) I will definitely try to merge the good parts about my article into the mainspace one, and will follow up with the translator about a minor things that struck me as strange in the German article. It may take me another day or two to find enough time and attention to look at it with care. Thank you for saying something! I would have missed the redirect part.

If I may, let me ask a broader question. If I understand right, I could have put my draft directly to mainspace. But by the time I knew that, I'd already put it to AfC, and I thought it might be frowned upon to bypass it. I have one other article (Draft:Wei Biao Wu) on AfC that I don't want to myself move to mainspace (for the reason given on the talk page). Do you think that is a correct way to proceed? Perhaps it would be better to also post a note to Wikiproject Statistics talk? I understand that the AfC folks are a little overwhelmed! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, well done on the merger of William Kantor, with an additional reminder that you can refactor your talk page as you see fit, especially since all sections below this one discuss the article William Kantor.

It appears that you are an autoconfirmed user, which means you can create articles directly in mainspace, and do not need to operate within the articles for creation process. However, I would suggest leaving any drafts already submitted to AfC within AfC. I support and respect your caution regarding Draft:Wei Biao Wu, and second your thought of reaching out to WikiProject Statistics. Regular editors there would be aware of Wu's field in general, if not his subfield, as well as the threshold for WP:PROF#C1 within statistics. Vycl1994 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for your help, and for being patient with beginner questions. I knew that talk pages were supposed to be basically preserved, but missed that refactoring was permitted. That's good to know! I'll try and leave a thoughtful message at WP:Statistics over the next day or two, and will stop going through AfC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thread with User:Suslindisambiguator

The suggested modifications for the William Kantor article seem good to me. Suslindisambiguator (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The merged article seems to be a big improvement. Suslindisambiguator (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Russ Woodroofe

Thank you for creating Thomas H. Brylawski.

User:Justlettersandnumbers, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

What a pleasure to see a new(ish) user contribute a proper article on an encyclopaedic topic – thank you! Have you considered submitting this to Wikipedia:Did you know, I wonder?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Justlettersandnumbers)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers:, thank you for the kind words! I did consider Wikipedia:Did you know, where Brylawski's lectures on math + art might play well. But I just submitted a biography of another matroid theorist, Henry Crapo (mathematician), and thought two matroid theorists in a short period might be a little much. Thanks again, Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... the mess here. It'll all get cleared up. I'd suggest you just ignore Ronald Gould (mathematician) (and the deletion discussion) for the rest of the day. I'll sort it out this evening if no one else has. Otherwise, just wanted to say your small articles on mathematicians look excellent! I'm glad to see another editor interested in academics. If there's any way I can be of assistance, let me know. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the sage advice, and thanks for the support! I'll leave all associated pages alone until the dust settles. Gould is a snow keep under WP:NPROF C5, but the apparent retaliation is the main thing here, and I'm not the right person to say that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. An amateur-hour bad-faith AfD isn't going anywhere (hence why it generally isn't done). Right now, I'm wondering if that editor is going to meet WP:BOOMERANG or WP:ROPE first. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Wei Biao Wu. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 26 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aaron Hawkins (engineer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aaron Hawkins uses nail polish to guide laser light into optofluidic devices to detect antibiotic resistance? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 23 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Henry Crapo (mathematician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that mathematics professor Henry Crapo donated a bronze sculpture of a boar (pictured) to the University of Waterloo? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Crapo (mathematician). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wei Biao Wu, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your additional re-writing of the Jay Neitz biography-that-was-not-a-biography was very impressive, and I thank you. - 332dash (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! It was in bad shape, but I could see a nice description of his work with monkeys hidden in the too-technical language. Thanks for bringing it up to AfD -- it definitely needed either attention or deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Josip Pečarić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I agree with your refactoring of the talk page. Indeed, these walls of text are best collapsed. GregorB (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flemming Topsøe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Russ Woodroofe

Thank you for creating Sylvia Cassedy.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|North8000)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have put the article up at WP:RM#C, in line with some comments in the recent deletion discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, on Talk:Josip Pečarić was my edit not correct for the blocked sock account? Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OyMosby, I think it was one possible correct thing to do, although I see also where JBL was coming from also. That article has been very contentious indeed. I'll go ahead and collapse the whole discussion in question, which seems unlikely to be helpful. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Russ, I have a general question concerning WP:NPROF. I understand they are just guidelines, not rules, but there seems to be disagreement among editors on whether meeting just one of the 8 criteria could be sufficient to justify having a page (I'm not talking about whether a criterion is met or not). The "Criteria" section of the page begins with "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." So it seems to be quite clear, one could be sufficient, yet several of the editors' comments seem to say otherwise. Thanks for your help. Jkorsunsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meeting one of the criteria suffices. Whether a particular position meets NPROF C5 has been a topic of much discussion. In the presence of an unexceptional citation record, and with little other evidence of academic notability, you're unlikely to convince anyone that the position held by Gregory Katz meets C5. You've made your best case for it, now I'd warmly suggest reading WP:BLUDGEON and considering its advice. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS. Are you signing your posts with four ~'s? Something is broken, as SineBot is coming back to date your posts. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info, and no intention of bludgeoning. As you say, I've made my statement. And yes, I'd forgotten about the four ~'s and was signing manually. Jkorsunsky (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THANKS! I did correction after talk with my mentor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YvesMe/Roman_Retzbach YvesMe (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'd suggest looking at some other short biographies as far as formatting etc issues go. But this article is likely to get deleted unless you can find a credible claim to notability. Are there German-language reviews of his books in reliable sources like journals or similar? (Note that amazon, goodreads and the like are certainly not reliable.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So thanks Russ Woodroofe ... .. for supporting! I never forget your help! :-) --YvesMe (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Edgardo M. Latrubesse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Amazon3112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Discussion moved to Talk:Edgardo M. Latrubesse#Amazon3112's edits. —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Mathsci (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, the "controversy" section you keep re-adding appears to violate the guidelines on WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK. I have opened a thread seeking admin opinion on this on BLP noticeboard here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Miroslava_Duma

I also did same on the page's talk page. I removed the "controversy" section for now pending the outcome on those thread. I seek your co-operation regarding this. ThanksEstarosmārṭ (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The allegations were well-sourced in major and respected media outlets, and were neutrally worded. It certainly was not an attack page. But I will wait on the opinion you requested from WP:BLPN. It is possible that experts there will find better ways to cover the controversy. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I added several nice photos of Tom Osler to the talk page. It seemed from your message that perhaps I could add them directly to the article? Not being sure, I put them in talk. If you could review them and incorporate, that would be wonderful.

Thank you! Skymath1 (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to Peter Gray himself, he was born in 1944 instead of 1946. See if you can undo your change. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanliangliu (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can add a source for bday to the article, then go ahead and add it. But without an appropriate source, it shouldn't be there per WP:BLP rules. I looked casually and did not find one (it is not, for example, on his CV, nor on his library of congress profile). I agree and understand that the state of sourcing for the article is weak in general. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Department of Science and Technology (India), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harsh Vardhan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Robert Slavin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. qedk (t 愛 c) 20:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Russ! About the changes you just made, it can't just say "the MLR", since it was a specific MLR. I'll leave it up to you for now, to decide if you want to change it back to just "Dattani's" or "Dattani and LeRoy's" or "Dattani et al.'s". It's hard to know what I was thinking 8 years ago when I wrote that, but I may have felt the latter two options were too "bulky" (and I still do). In the following point it's okay to say "LeRoy et al. constructed" because we don't have to put the apostrophe and 's' after et al., and since I was mentioning LeRoy's name in the next bullet point, I thought putting "Dattani's" in this bullet point would look best overall. If there's concerns about ambiguity due to saying "Dattani's" instead of "Dattani et al.'s", the citation clearly shows who is an author and who is not, and combined with LeRoy's name being mentioned in multiple other parts of the article no one is missing out on being mentioned if it says "Dattani's MLR" but I'll leave it to you how you want to change it to reflect that it's a specific MLR function including all parameters set numerically rather than being variables like in the 'general' definition of the MLR model. Furthermore the quote from Jim Mitroy's group that you removed, is in my opinion fair to include. No authors of the Mitroy paper overlap with any of the authors of any of the authors of the LeRoy et al. I'm willing to discuss with you, but please do not ping Joelle into the conversation since I am fed up with the badgering and nitpicking and seemingly perpetual relentlessness I've already dealt with from that user. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added: Why did you remove the application to KLi by Salami et al.? I do admit that having a red link instead of a blue one does not look nice, and when I added that 8 years ago, I had hoped that an article about KLi would be created at some point, but now I agree it could just be typeset as KLi instead of KLi. However, I don't see why the application to KLi is much less important than the ones about Li2, and I think it's good to have a "notable example" given for a molecule other than Li2. Furthermore including this molecule would make it look less promotional about Dattani, because the KLi example has nothing to do with Dattani. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added: Your removal of the point about KLi messed up the reference list. Please use "show preview" next time. I'm adding it back for now, not just to get the citation back properly, but it reduces the percentage of featured examples in which Dattani is involved, and it features a completely different aspect of the MLR that the first two examples don't show (specifically, the ability for the MLR to give a potential when there's only data at the top of the potential, whereas the first example had data at the bottom, and the second example had data throughout. I'm always willing to discuss. Dr. Universe (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added: Sorry, I noticed that the citation that got messed up when you deleted the KLi example, got fixed by a Bot afterwards, which I didn't notice because I was looking at the diff between your revision and the one before it, which showed the bibliographic entry entirely in red and clearly in error. In any case, I see no reason why the KLi example should be removed, and would be happy to discuss if you think it's less significant than the other two examples. Dr. Universe (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added: If you do choose to reply to me, please go easy on me, please. I'm not trying to get into a war with anyone. I do not want things to get ugly, and I'm willing to listen to you and discuss things, as long as the tone is not so harsh and no accusations/defamations (whether intended or not) are not made against anyone. I'm going through anxiety right now and would appreciate more positive interactions here. Dr. Universe (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Universe: I am concerned that you appear to have a WP:COI when it comes to topics concerning Dattani. I'm sure that you're familiar with the COI policies, and remind you that you should declare COI on the user talk page of an affected article with the "connected contributor" template (or "connected contributor (paid)"), depending.) In particular, a good portion of your editing output has been adding prominent mention of Dattani to articles in a way that appears to me to be WP:UNDUE. I have so far taken a fairly conservative approach to remedy this, and reverted your reversion of aspects of the AfD close by Missvain (at Timeline of quantum computing and communication‎), and of some trimming by XOR'easter at Morse/Long-range potential (well, ok, also of the addition of the quote, which seems undue in the context). I do generally use preview on my edits. The bot correction at Morse/Long-range potential does not appear to be connected to my edit, which did not touch references at all. If you are concerned about accuracy of "the MLR", then alternatives include "an MLR technique" or "an MLR potential technique"; surely there are also others. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are overly concerned about COI here, and I'm starting to worry that you're developing a vendetta against me and the subjects that I've contributed to. What you described as your own "excessive good-faith" towards an almost certain sockpuppet who an admin independently found to be highly suspicious and on a mission to attack someone, speaks volumes. Where is your excessive good-faith towards me and my edits? I had never heard of "WP:BLUDGEON" before, so in addition to my keep !vote I had made some comments, (1) about the appearance of a meatpuppet (which by the way since you seem to know so much more about how Wikipedia works, I wish you had opened up that investigation yourself; I "bludgeoned" the page with a comment about it because I didn't know about the existence of an investigations page), (2) I commented on the nom's accusation that I've put "incorrect affiliations" on the article, even though I was only going by what was in independent references, (3) I commented on another user's request for proof that I am the person that the article is talking about, and I tried to help by calling in someone who said on the subject's talk page that they have literally talked to the subject. Where is your excessive good-faith when accusing me of bludgeoning, when I didn't know what it was and I was just replying to a lot of different things going on in the page? JoelleJay bludgeoned the page far more than it was at the time of you mentioning bludgeoning, but all you've done is praise her. TheLawGiverOfDFT has made some serious accusations without proof (suspicions are okay, but these accusations without proof are explicitly not allowed according to the article about AfD), which is unacceptable according to Wikipedia policy, and you did nothing about that other than to show your support for one of their possible sockpuppet by showing what you call excessively-good-faith. Joelle's use of the words "absurd", "baseless", and "Christ" were unacceptable, but you praised her after that, even after she kept writing more and more when I asked her to stop WP:Badgering me and demanding excruciating levels of detail, and after I said she was Sealioning. You saw her make an absolutely extraordinary accusation of WP:HOUNDING against me (just look at my Talk Page with her and the one AfD where I told her to stop badgering a user) but you supported her.

I wrote the article about someone and then mentioned that person's name in other articles, it's not different from you creating an article for Michael Woodroofe and then creating articles for a bunch of his students and "namebombing" Michael's name into their articles when in fact most articles I've seen about academics don't have someone's supervisor's name written in there unless there was something important or interesting about who they were supervised by. I haven't touched any of those articles because I don't want to be accused of hounding, but I would really, really like you to back off with your accusations about WP:UNDUE and your vandalism of the MLR page by removing the application to the KLi molecule (which by the way did not have Dattani listed as a co-author at all, so it actually neutralized the article if anything).

About your removal of a citation on the MLR page, just look at your version, at the bottom, where it says "Cite error: The named reference Salami(KLi) was invoked but never defined (see the help page).". Please check this next time before denying things as it meant I had to go and double check again.

About your suggestions of "an MLR techniques" etc., I think you're totally missing the point made in my initial comments on your talk page.

I asked you to please go easy on me if you reply, but you've responded with more accusations about COI, denial of any wrongdoing with removal of the citation from MLR, a response on the sockpuppet investigation page that begs great questions (I'll respond there next) and praising JoelleJay after they violated several Wikipedia policies. You seem to have been very invested in getting that article removed and mentions of the subject's name removed, and me the opposite. The article is now removed along with what the closing admin removed. I would be very happy if we can leave it at that. If you could continue editing things in your subject area, without WP:CANVASSING your friends to try to remove articles like the MLR, and without removing entire chunks of the article which didn't mention Dattani at all, I at least would appreciate that, and you already know I haven't tried to do anything to articles you've worked on. I really don't want to get into a long back-and-forth here. You can say the last word if you want, but I do not want to get into a war. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why you wrote on my talk page about a COI investigation, and I would really like to clear your concerns up through discussion between you and me before you start making a long list of accusations against me publicly. Also yesterday I thought of a way we could phrase that mention of "the MLR" which was your edit which started this discussion here on your talk page: we could say "the MLR optimized in that paper" but this is really going out of our way just to avoid mentioning Dattani's name, and I'm not sure why you are so extremely eager to avoid mentioning one person's name here! Dr. Universe (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hal Schenck, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Russ, I wonder why you removed mention of the book on the Psuedo-Boolean Wikipedia page? You do seem to have a vendetta against me, but I haven't even ever edited that page. You seem to be very concerned about COI edits, but in the list of "quadratizations" you have kept reference 4 which is a paper by P. Strandmark, even though that was added there by a user named Petter Strandmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Petter_Strandmark&action=history. Why are you mentioning this page on the COIN board when I never edited the page, but are seemingly turning a blind eye to others who have actually added mentions of their own name such as this P. Strandmark paper being added by P. Strandmark, and Michael Woodroofe being added to many articles by Russ Woodroofe? Also I took a brief look at that book you removed, and it mentioned the P. Strandmark paper, and the Ishikawa paper, and the Boros paper, and the Kolmogorov paper (pretty much all the papers mentioned in "optimization" section of that article on pseudo-boolean), plus 70 other references. The three "quadratization" formulae on that pseudo-boolean wikipedia article seem to be in the book that you removed, whereas the book also lists about 70 other quadratization formulas by a multitude of different authors. In my last messages here, if I wasn't clear enough, I was trying to call a truce with you, but since then you've only attacked me more. Why are you fighting so much when the article you wanted removed already got removed, and the mentions of that subject's name have already been removed in the places where the closing admin removed them, and even more by yourself which the admin didn't do? I would really like to move on from all this and would appreciate you not opening up investigations which scare me when I get emails from Wikipedia with title "Russ mentioned you in an investigation against you" ... never in my life got an email from Wikipedia before, so this was scary. I'm happy to discuss any of the articles I contributed to, as long as it's done in a reasonable and civil way. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The arXiv posting I removed from Pseudo-Boolean function appeared to be part of a consistent campaign to promote Nike Dattani. I am certainly not attacking you personally in any way, but I am concerned about that campaign, and a possible part that you may play in it. Uninvolved editors at WP:COIN so far seem to share my concern. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply Russ. I thought that the 70-page arXiv review of quadratizations was a valuable contribution to the article, and there appears to be a consistent campaign from you and Joelle to de-promote Nike Dattani. Let me tell you something: Even though I've had Wikipedia for 13 years and have 1000+ edits, more than 500 of them were in the last 2 weeks and I never knew what COIN, or HOUNDING, or BLUDGEON, or BADGER, or SEALION, or any of those things were, and while I did use the word "COI" in the past because of a ring of 22 different accounts/IP addresses reverting my edits, I had no idea there was even an article about COI until now (otherwise I would have opened up a Sockpuppet investigation long ago, like Missvain did; I would have posted user taka_tanimura on the COIN because of their constant smear campaign where they changed "Kyoto University" to "Kyoto Women's University" on the Nike Dattani page, which is what lead TheLawGiverOfDFT to accuse me of putting "incorrect affiliations" on their page in the opening of the AfD, even though I was only adding the affiliations which were given in independent sources). It seems you and Joelle are full-time users on Wikipedia and I am not, and frankly I'm finding all of these noticeboard discussions (e.g. AfD and COIN) to be extremely overwhelming for me, especially due to the sheer number of accusations against me. For example, how can you say that I was trying to avoid a G4 violation when an admin already said the articles were totally different and they were written four years apart! (and I didn't even know what G4 was). The article deleted in 2014 was an extremely small stub, which was before Dattani's media attention in November 2014 for breaking the record for largest number factored on a quantum computer (featured on Phys.org and several other places in many languages). The article I created in 2018 was extremely different since the subject had gone from what Eppstein said in 2014 was "only 3 articles with double-digit citations, and single-digit h-index" to 3 articles with 100+ citation and an h-index of around 20. The rules of COIN say that you should try to discuss things on Talk pages first, but you only replied to me once here. Can we try to sort out any issues you have here, and withdraw me from this 14-day investigation which is causing me to lose sleep, lose the ability to eat properly, lose proper bowel movements and affecting my digestion of food? I have already removed mention of "Nike Dattani" from almost all of the articles you listed. As I learn more about Wikipedia, I've removed his name from some articles where I think it's totally DUE, simply because I was the one that created his biography page, so I'm happy to have his name not mentioned in these DUE places unless someone else feels it's necessary to add it. What more reason is there now to have me going through this torture for so much longer? I would very much appreciate if you could withdraw so that I can get some rest from all these accusations. If you have questions I'm happy to answer them here! Dr. Universe (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've indicated in several places that you distrust my ability to be fair. Taking the situation to COIN ensures that you'll be heard by uninvolved editors. Additionally, I think that the large number of articles and long time scale would tend to indicate involving other editors anyway. Meanwhile, I do suggest carefully reading the conflict of interest guidelines, as most frequent editors here take the issue quite seriously. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are the "several places" where I indicated that I distrust your ability to be fair before you opened the COIN? We've only communicated on the AfD and here right? Taking it to COIN didn't help because you deceived everyone by saying that I tried to avoid a G4 violation even though an admin already told you that the articles were completely different and 4 years apart. In the absence of me pointing that out, the first reviewer just took your word for it, and the second reviewer did seem fair until JoelleJay stepped in and the second reviewer changed their mind. JoelleJay is not an uninvolved editor as you know. I find it suspicious that you didn't put the COIN on the physics noticeboard until so much later than opening the COIN, and then Joelle says that they found the article on the physics noticeboard despite working in biology. Considering your recent appraisals of one another in talk pages, and your collaboration on trying to make me look bad on the AfD (she was bludgeoning, badgering, sealioning and outright harassing me and using abusive language, but you somehow accused me of sealioning and ignored her inaccurate accusation of me "hounding"), I can't help but to suspect that she contacted you (which is easy because your real name is your username) and collaborated with you to have the COIN listed on physics noticeboard (quite randomly, considering the COIN was already opened much earlier) so that she could say that this was how she found it. You know quite well that I have told Joelle many times to stop badgering me, and here she comes with this totally ridiculous "hounding" accusation on a COIN discussion: Therefore, no, I am not getting uninvolved editors (one of them in Joelle and others won't be able to judge the situation fairly because of the deceiving things you and Joelle wrote such as a G4 accusation and a hounding accusation). Because Joelle always wants to have the last word and will go to extreme lengths to defend her initial position no matter how questionable it turns out to be, I am terrified at the possibility of having this go on for 14 days after I already suffered from 7 days on the AfD (as the subject of the accusations, I do need to defend myself, but people do not need to keep furthering those accusations). My subject's name has already been removed from pretty much all the articles you listed, why do you still need to have this up? It is not resulting in an "uninvolved" decision anyway, so I would very much appreciate if you could withdraw. You're welcome to check all those pages and my account if you see further suspicious activity in the future. But please just let me have some peace now. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Russ, I totally forgot how to write articles, and clicking the "sandbox" button leads to some strange GUI buttons which I don't remember from the last time I created a page. Can you help me with this one? User:Dr._Universe/Jiří_Čížek The author's 1966 paper has 3000+ citations on Google Scholar, and I don't have a conflict of interest. Dr. Universe (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added now also the "early life and education" and "professional career" parts, which I worry may be at risk of being dubbed a "copyright violation" even though I paraphrased and put it into my own words. Can you take a look?

This one too. I don't even remember how I created those previous articles because I don't remember it being anything like this. Can you check this academic for notability? User:Dr._Universe/Donald_James_LeRoy. He did not hold the "highest" position at a university, but he was Vice President of Science at National Research Council of Canada and apparently formed the computational and theoretical chemistry sub-department at University of Toronto while he was chairman of the department. He probably has a lot of citations too, but he pre-dates Google Scholar. Dr. Universe (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a few minor changes per WP:MOS at User:Dr._Universe/Jiří_Čížek. Some other comments on that draft:

• Every statement in the article should be backed up by a citation. Stuff beyond basic education, etc, should be to a reliable independent source. The Waterloo page is fine for the Distinguished Prof title. The awards should be backed by citations (often you can find them with the awarding organization). Discussion of the importance of his work should be in secondary sources (you can also include a primary reference to his work). It looks like he's been covered non-trivially in a Festschrift or similar [1].
• I recommend as a first sentence something like "Jiří Čížek (born 1938) is a Czech-Canadian scientist, known for his work in chemistry and applied mathematics" or similar. I haven't looked deeply enough to accurately describe his work; my point is that the first sentence should say who he is and what he is notable for. (The 2nd sentence could then say "He is a distinguished emeritus professor at the University of Waterloo." It can be worth leaving a hidden comment in the source that distinguished is part of the title.)
• I recommend trimming the "Personal life" section altogether, unless a family member is notable. I recommend trimming the pre-1980 awards, which look like early career stuff (Sloan is pretty prestigious, and is the most likely to remain).

If you are or were a colleague of Čížek, then that probably does constitute a COI. If so, you should leave the Template:Connected contributor tag on the talk page, send the article through WP:Articles for Creation, and use restraint after it accepted (as it should be, if you add sufficient referencing, etc). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for the feedback! I'm still unclear where to draw the line about COI because I'm getting accused of it at COIN for writing about people that I don't "know personally" meanwhile you wrote an article about Michael Woodroofe and one of his students, then mentioned his name in a bunch of his students's Wikipedia articles but it seems fine. I was never a colleague of Čížek: He retired in 1996 and hasn't published anything or taken any students or postdocs for ages. I've never talked to him. However, I've been a huge fan of Robert J LeRoy and the people he touched, for over a decade, so I have been interested in writing about the quantum chemistry people coming out of University of Waterloo: which means LeRoy, Dattani (his student that we talked about earlier), Čížek, Donald James LeRoy, Josef Paldus, Edward Vrscay (not yet written), Fred McCourt (not yet written), etc. Does this mean I have a "conflict" of interest? It seems I wrote the LeRoy radius article over a decade ago (but I'm very surprised that I was capable of that because this concept of a "sandbox" is very unfamiliar to me, and it's bizarre that I got an article accepted in 2008 but can't even get one accepted now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr._Universe#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_sandbox_(June_2)). Also it seems that I created an article called Jiri Cizek 2 years ago that got rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr._Universe#Draft:Jiri_Cizek, is it possible to recover that and see what I wrote back then?

For Jiri Cizek I was pretty sure he'd satisfy C1 because he has a paper with 3000+ citations. What about the article in my sandbox (also mentioned above) for Donald James Le Roy? He did not hold the "highest" position at a university, but he was Vice President of Science at National Research Council of Canada and apparently formed the computational and theoretical chemistry sub-department at University of Toronto while he was chairman of the department. He probably has a lot of citations too, but he pre-dates Google Scholar. He was Robert LeRoy's father. Dr. Universe (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For Cizek, the case for WP:NPROF C1 is ok, but with just the one article, it could be a WP:BLP1E. But as there's also a WP:NPROF C5 and a (weak?) WP:NPROF C3 case, I think the overall case for notability is solid. I don't have a strong opinion on notability of the senior LeRoy, although I have formed the opinion that you should make the connected contributor declaration if you try to advance that draft.

You've asked about Michael Woodroofe. No one is likely to get upset about the edits I've made surrounding that article, because I've followed the COI procedures. I made the template:connected contributor declaration. I sent the article through articles for creation. Since AfC acceptance, I've left the article alone except for one edit that adjusted formatting and added one to the list of notable (= having a Wikipedia article) students. I have certainly _not_ added undue mention to Woodroofe on other wikipedia pages: I wikilinked existing mentions, and I advanced an article on the one former PhD student of his (through AfC, with transparency about my connection). There are plenty of articles where his work could probably be mentioned (as a senior figure with 1000s of citations in a not-so-highly cited field), and I am absolutely not the one that should be adding such mention. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'll reply ASAP: For now will just say that if you think I should put "connected contributor" on Donald James LeRoy (even though I do not know him personally, nor professionally, nor in any capacity at all, and he died in 1985 which well-predates my interest in any of these topics), then perhaps my understanding of "connected" contributor was not broad enough and I'll consider to re-read the COI article carefully and add this template myself to Donald James LeRoy and Robert J LeRoy and any articles mentioning Robert's students including Dattani. I didn't think I was "connected" to these guys, but if based on what I told you about my interest in DJ LeRoy you're suggesting I put "connected contributor" on the article I write for him, I would be open to doing it this more broadly. The COIN page does say to try to resolve things like this in talk pages first (which I am willing to do, especially now that you told me "connected" contributor should extend all the way to DJ LeRoy which means perhaps also to RJ LeRoy's students), since I find these wide, public, accusation-type discussions to be quite unpleasant and other than that extremely simple AfD in 2014, I knew nothing about how COIN or AfD work, nor was I ever involved in them. By the way, if I've used a Waterloo IP address and am inserting Waterloo people into articles where there's indeed a reference like a paper or a media article, I didn't think this was a "conflict" of interest. When I first joined Wikipedia in 2008 I asked about this and they said that they actually needed subject-matter-experts very familiar with areas that might get under-represented otherwise, though I can appreciate if the culture and recommended guidelines change over time, like they did on Reddit. Also, do you know how I can get back that draft on Jiri Cizek that I wrote 2 years ago? Dr. Universe (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure on your old draft. It's probably better to start the article over. Regarding connected contributor disclosure, I think MrOllie gave good advice at COIN on staying away from writing about Waterloo faculty. Otherwise, my best advice is to err strongly on the side of disclosure. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think Hierarchical equations of motion might get a chance at getting deleted? Dr. Universe (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A mathematical proof is not creative writing, you can't rearrange a specific string of formulas and logical connections that you need to get to the final result, what do you mean by the distinction between "ideas" and "presentation" in case of a specific proof?! What can "another presentation" of a concrete proof even mean?! (And if you know, rewrite it rather than deleting!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talk • contribs)

The presentation of a mathematical proof requires significant creative choices, although it is not creative writing per se. Copying it word-for-word, or nearly so, is surely a copyright violation. If you want to include the proof in the article, my best advice is to read the article, think about it, understand it, and come back later to write it in your own words. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for suggesting the Wayback Machine. I have never used that. A quick look did not appear to find anything, but maybe I was not using it correctly. I would be surprised if Nigerian universities are archived in this way, particularly a few decades back. Could you have a quick look? --Bduke (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bduke: I did look a little bit, and found at least a university history page (added at the AfD discussion). There is a book length history, but unfortunately it came out a year before he became vice chancellor. There's some discussion of how he became vice chancellor at [2]. He appears to have frequently gone by B. B. Dambatta, and I had a little more luck searching for him that way, FWIW. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prof, why is there not a Russ Woodroofe on here? --Rrmmll22 (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rrmmll22, I think I'd !vote "weak delete" per WP:TOOSOON if someone with a record like mine came up at AfD. The citation record is around the border, even for a low-citation field, and for an early-mid-career person (not yet full prof, etc) I'd come down delete in the absence of other signs of notability. Give it a few years! :-) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Woodroofe - The purpose of my edits is to try and keep the article balanced, neutral, and complete. As a member of the community (as I answered ElKevbo’s question above) who has lived by the College, I think it is important that a complete picture be presented. For example, my edit that reads in part,

In its last decades, the college experienced significant financial challenges and relied on state funding and grants.[4][1] In recent years, efforts by College Administrators, and support from City, County, State and Federal leadership, ensured funding would be available to the college to continue operations and ensuring that students federal financial aid and faculty, and staff salaries would not be impacted. Additionally, unlike many colleges across the country that have had to close because of the impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Wesley College was able to maintain operations during the global COVID-19 Pandemic. A few months before Wesley College was acquired by Delaware State University, members of the college faculty published a no confidence resolution against Wesley's last president, Robert E. Clark II on March 1, 2021, that was forwarded to the Wesley College Board of trustees. The Wesley College Board of trustees voted unanimously on March 20,2021 to dismiss the resolution in full support of President Clark's exceptional performance, and leadership. Additionally, the board of trustees voted unanimously, to bestow upon President Clark, president emeritus in recognition of his leadership, and service to the college and the community.

is an attempt to provide a balanced, neutral, and complete narrative using credible references. As currently edited by JonBoi199 (and supported by ElKevbo), this section provides an incomplete narrative. Their edits do not include a more holistic discussion about the challenges the College faced and how they were able to operate during the recent Pandemic. Additionally, where their edit states, “The college faculty passed a no confidence resolution against Wesley's last President, Robert E. Clark II, on March 1, 2021, citing his failures in leadership.” – they fail to explain/report the entire process - members of the faculty published a no confidence resolution two months before the College became part of Delaware State University that was forwarded to the Board of Trustees for action; the Board acted - dismissed the resolution in full support of the President; and then subsequently bestowed upon the President, President Emeritus. Finally, some of their edits have referenced content that in fact is not discussed/presented in the reference they cite – for example when their edit states, “Approximately 60 percent of the Wesley Community were offered employment by Delaware State University, with mostly visiting, non-tenure track positions.”, the article they cite makes no mention or qualification of the positions offered. I hope this explains my intentions in the detail you request. I welcome these types of discussions and hopefully we can come to a consensus for a balanced narrative for this page. (I also posted on Talk Page for Wesley College)SWLVR87 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will response on Talk:Wesley College (Delaware). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for trying to work towards a collaborative resolution. I also responded on Talk:Wesley College (Delaware), added a few minor edits, less than my previous edits, for completeness and accuracy as already discussed. SWLVR87 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Russ, do you know what the procedure is for dealing with an autobiographical editor whom persistently keeps editing is? I noted him on the talk page, and he just removed my edit note about it being autobiographical, so I am getting the impression that he doesn't seem to care and this is going to veer into edit warring pretty quickly. My guess is to bring it to an ANI and have him blocked from editing the page, but I also know that if you escalate to ANI to quickly you get trout slapped.

Thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 22:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strike this. He replied on the talk page and said he'll stop so this should be fine now! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 22:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, he thanked my COI notice on his talk page, and I'm not finding it difficult to assume general good faith here. We shall see... If someone ignores and/or is dishonest with COI notices, then the next place that I'd take it would probably be WP:COIN, especially if we're just looking at a single article (or a small cluster). Edit-warring can sometimes lead to WP:3RR, of course. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He removed the autobio tag again after his message as an IP address which I reverted, so I am fairly suspicious and will try to keep an eye on this page. Either way, thanks for the info/help :) --Tautomers_{(T C)} 02:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to let you know that a user, Veritasuber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked just now. They registered and then reverted a good number of your contributions for no reason and I suspect they are an LTA. wizzito | say hello! 02:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Wizzito! I also noticed that Veritasuber (talk · contribs) registered and began reverting myself and ElKevbo minutes after the two of us were involved in a 3RR report of DelawareDude (talk · contribs) over at Wesley College (Delaware). It is possible that the two are related. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know how I missed all of those, I'm normally pretty decent at finding sourcing. I hate to see an author's article deleted when we have an article on every Indian television show in the past 40 years. Thanks for your diligence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: No problem, and thank you for the kind words! The Reviews checkbox on the JSTOR advanced search is a pretty good trick (and what I used), but I thought the keep case was still a little on the weak side until David Eppstein found more reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[3] What is the correct/easy way to do that? If I start the afd it's easy, but after the fact? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind, found WP:DELSORT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I thought there might be an automated way to add an AfD to delsorting lists, but didn't see it. Good future feature for twinkle? Anyway, one you've found an appropriate delsorting list, the instructions to add it are right on the page. It's easy to do, except that you need to edit multiple pages. Anyway, since the AfD hasn't gotten much attention so far, it seemed like a good idea to add it to some lists. The Artists one is a 100% good fit, but is not terrible either, and should get it some attention. You might find some other lists that are a better fit -- I did a pretty quick pass at it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ooh, I hoped adding template to afd-page would be enough, but I see your edithistory. YES, I'd like to see that in twinkle. Thanks again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: User:Enterprisey/delsort looks relevant! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added scriptinstaller and that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photo you posted from the Oberwolfach Collection has been removed for copyright violation. I'll let you explain how Oberwolfach allows us to post photos from their collection. I'm more than a little tired of this alleged copyright business. When I have more time I will report these admins for not understanding what is allowed and what isn't. Mvitulli (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mvitulli: Only it sounds like I didn't read the MFO copyright policy carefully enough. (In my defense, it is a little confusing.) Perhaps Greuel would license his low-res photos for commons, if he's still active? Anyway, I'm going to pin my hopes on the Nagel photo. I'd suggest trying to get Wisconsin to put a clearer copyright message by the photo, and meanwhile proceeding with Nagel contacting VRT. (I'll point out that Wisconsin's generic template copyright message does not automatically give them ownership of the photo.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nagel has sent something to VRT. I have my hopes on using that photo too. She sent something to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons including

"I believe that I am the owner of the photographs I took because I found this page on the UW system page concerning copyrights:https://www.wisconsin.edu/general-counsel/legal-topics/copyright/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20if%20a%20work%20is,date%20depends%20on%20several%20factors. Among other things, it states

'Under the UW System Policy on Ownership of Copyrightable Instructional Materials (SYS 191), the employee usually owns all rights in his or her creations.'"

Nagel hasn't heard back from VRT or Permissions - Wikimedia Commons. This is getting ridiculous. Don't know what else to try.Mvitulli (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote to Oberwolfach --- Oberwolfach needs to hold the MFO for us to use the photo on Wikipedia. I don't like that photo. Assn for Women in Math has better photos.

If you want to contact Gert-Martin Greuel directly his email address is greuel AT mathematik.uni-kl.de Mvitulli (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mvitulli, apologies for not responding. The last few weeks have kept me pretty busy, and my Wikipedia activity has been fits and starts. On VRT: I understood the advice of the commons administrator to be to open a VRT Noticeboard case after Nagel sent an email. I would expect that someone would at least undelete the picture while the copyright paperwork is pending in that case. Feel free to ping me when you do so: I'm not sure how much help I can be, but I'll try. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have never opened a VRT Noticeboard case. Can you give me a pointer or take it on yourself? Mvitulli (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I can do that. There should be a ticket # that Nagel was assigned when she emailed VRT. Would you happen to know it? (I notice that posts to the noticeboard usually reference this number.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ticket#2022050610007486 is what she got from Permissions-Wikimedia Commons. I just asked her if she got a case number from VRT release generator. Thanks so much for doing this. Where do you go to file the VRT Noticeboard case? Mvitulli (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So posted [4]. Pinging also David Eppstein, since he was interested. We'll see what the commons folks say. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks, Russ. Please keep me posted. If the photo is restored to Wikimedia Commons I would like to add it back to Benkart's page. Mvitulli (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why you wrote "I'm not sure what Dr. Universe is trying to accomplish here" on the Academic notability talk page? Is it trying to de-legitimize the discussion I started? Normally something like that wouldn't bother me so much but you have had a history of antagonizing me and I just want there to be peace between us. Dr. Universe (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote that, because I don't know what you are trying to do there. Some of the earlier responders also looked like they weren't sure of what to make of it out of context, so I tried to at least give what I thought the context was. I ask that you strike "have had a history of antagonizing me", which I do not believe is accurate. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Seasons greetings!
	Wishing you joyous holiday spirits, Russ Woodroofe! and best wishes for the New Year

Beccaynr (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beccaynr, Happy New Years yourself! Thanks for the good wishes, and for everything you do here. All the best in the coming year. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, could you please explain how this edit violates what you're saying? Dajasj (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doh! I was editing too fast, and thought you were adding an inline external link, rather than removing it. Will go self-revert now. Sorry about that! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, I wanted to check before we got into an edit war over some miscommunication ;) I'm trying to get rid of as many external links as possible (unfortunately, there are a lot). Dajasj (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stumbled on this, you may or may not find it interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: thank you! I had noticed the discussion, but had not been following it (and had not noticed when it got a little acrimonious). I'll think about whether I can be helpful there. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Srečno novo leto! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hvala, enako! :-) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To je zame grško, bojim se. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you talked about notoriety C1 but although Daniel Lazard has numerous citations, the impact of his research on the field is not "attested by independant sources" as C1 requires. That would mean for example that he is quoted in public media as having a big impact on the field, which is not the case. Therefore C1 seems unreceivable Username1789 (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NPROF c1 * Username1789 (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The citing works form several thousand independent sources, and while each one contributes very little, together they form a solid pass of NPROF notability. See point 1a under "Specific criteria notes" in the NPROF guidelines -- 1d is also relevant wrt the retirement conference. Meanwhile, the pointed editing from you and other editors that I see surrounding Lazard over the last few weeks is not a good look, and I urge you to desist from it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you mentioned myself on a nomination for deletion on Catharine Young (scientist) that I hadn't made or even discussed. I have made some nominations after collecting data the last days, both for male and female academics after my Wikipedia:BEFORE. If there's any problem or if you would like to say any positive comment, let me know. Thank you! Chiserc (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chiserc, I was simply trying to clarify the situation. It looked like you were being confused with another editor. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I understand. If there is any issue, let me know. Ok, thank you! Chiserc (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your question at WP:BLPN, [5], I'd suggest you contact act an admin privately by email, providing full details. Alternatively, you could consider contacting the WMF per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, if you think the content of the emails merits it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: thank you! Moving to email sounds like excellent advice. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit [6], quote from [7]. It looks ok, but if you'd be willing examine it, one never knows with google translate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, while my Slovenian is pretty primitive, this looks ok to me after a somewhat detailed look. (A little awkward, a little free with the last half sentence, but fine.) I ran it quickly by a native speaker, and they also didn't complain. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I noted in the article that the name of his shop seems to translate as "Golden fleece" (makes sense to me), but in another part of the article it seems to become "Power of the Ring". Is there possibly some wordplay involved? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I understand correctly, the "Power of the Ring" business is not referring to his workshop. Filling in gaps, I _think_ this may be an experience that Ljubljana Tourism has designed and subcontracted to him, to create custom engagement/etc rings for couples. So, Power of the Ring because he's making rings, and also because everyone loves Tolkien. (Feeing the sentence by itself to Google Translate will give a more satisfactory result, here, I think.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. It's not easy to see which bit in Slovenian is which bit in English. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. A good trick is to hover the mouse over the Google translated text. At least on my computer and browser, it shows the relevant source text. (I might have more experience with GT than any one person should have ;-).) Anyway, Power of the Ring comes from "Moč prstana". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see now that when I browser-translated the article, the English translation ignored some text after "At the Power of the Ring workshop, which is one of the craft experiences, " but there was more text in Slovenian, so I got confused. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was definitely confusing!! GT is great, and usually does a good job Slovenian-to-English, but it's far from perfect. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you deleting the content about Tosca's comments on Israelis from the article? This seems politically motivated. The comments are in the news, and I used a reliable source (an ABC News station, with the story attributed to the National Desk). My contribution was neutrally worded and fair and included appropriate information. It was reliably sourced. There appears to be no reason to remove it other than wanting to protect the subject of the article from the inclusion of a newsworthy controversy. Wendisway (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wendisway, for this kind of material in a WP:BLP, we need multiple independent high-quality sources -- see WP:PUBLICFIGURE and also WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. I do see that the local ABC/Sinclair affiliates have posted about it, and this is a start. (Although there are two stations involved, they appear to fail independence.) If sources do emerge at some point, then the article might support a 1-2 sentence summary of the incident (probably not more), which is after all likely to be a small blip in the subject's career. The right place to talk about the story is at the article talk page (or possible at WP:BLPN, which I posted a neutrally-worded notification to). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, I give up. I gave two reliable news sources (and would have added more if you hadn't kept deleting before I could finish any edit), but it's very clear that the subject of this pretty obviously self-published PR puff piece article is protected as one of Wikipedia's very special subjects - no potentially image-damaging information permitted, no matter how widely reported by reliable news sources. Got it. Wendisway (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry this happened, extremely embarassing that this editor refuses to cooperate despite you clearly giving two verified sources. 66.97.145.65 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi@Russ Woodroofe got your undo on the article Universal Ai University - trim top 125 ranking from Times of India: yellow source according to WP:RSP, known to accept payment for positive coverage.

Thanks for going through the article and removing the additions for ranking, however https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/indias-growth-champions-2023-ranks-nations-fastest-growing-companies/articleshow/98454662.cms citation is not from TOI,its from Economics Time and the ranking was in collaboration with Statista and not doesn't seem to be a paid coverage. Kindly see and undo it if you find it authentic.

Happy Editing ! MSatindia (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MSatindia, I believe the consensus on ToI applies also to its sister publication, the Economic Times. I am skeptical that this rather random ranking from a low-reliability publication is due to include in the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Russ Woodroofe, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your efforts in the Tosca-discussion. I'm reminded on the extensive discussions that predated this section:Tom_Willett#Legal_issues, that issue was discussed in several Youtube videos, at least one of which had over a million views. Many new people turned up on the talkpage, and people like me kept saying no, no, no. Funnily enough, the usable source was first "discovered" on Wikipediocracy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you for the kind words! And thank you even more for your part in building a consensus at the Mika Tosca article. Working at the intersection of two contentious topics is certainly a bit tricky. Patience is certainly a helpful virtue in general on Wikipedia, although I am hoping to edit in calmer waters for the next while. :-) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]