Wikipedia

Talk:Teo Mora

Latest comment: 7 years ago by 47.222.203.135 in topic additional further reading
Learn more about this page

corrections of some mistakes

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Teo Mora, my apologies for these factual errors,[1] and my thanks for pointing them out.

  • I was basing the description of what your SPES books covered, on the book-subtitles. The better approach is to report what published reviews of the books have said, but in some cases I do not have the access to those publications, or have not yet had the time to add the reviews to the wikipedia article yet. And of course the best approach is to have a wikipedian who has read the books (or in your case written the books!) able to help explain their purpose and contents. I have integrated the book-subtitles into the wikipedia prose, and located two reviews, one of which gives a brief description of the contents (SPES_I as covering equations of a single variable and SPES_II as covering multi-variate equations). Is this an improvement?

In addition to WP:Accuracy-type errors of fact, wikipedia article should also strive to avoid errors of omission (per WP:NPOV), or errors of over-emphasis / under-emphasis (per WP:UNDUE). As you already know, wikipedia articles are also supposed to avoid an informal tone (WP:TONE), and especially in biographical entries any overly-negative / overly-positive language (WP:BLP). Any problems like that which you notice, ought be corrected. Wikipedia is sometimes frustrating of course, because almost anybody can work on the biographical entries, and often material is not a polished as it ought to be -- or in some cases just missing outright, such as an article on AAECC.

Please let me know if there is any other problematic material, by clicking 'edit' at the top of this article-talkpage. Or you can just directly ask for assistance at WP:TEAHOUSE, for a faster response. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • As you can see on the top of Teo Mora, this article, it is considered for deletion. It appears from the discussion that there is a consensus for deleting, and that the article will probably be deleted in a few days. Therefore, it is a waste of time of trying to provide a complete bibliography of Mora. Moreover, in Wikipedia articles about academics, only the main publications of the subject must appear. Therefore I would have reverted the inclusion of this long list of references, if the article were not close to be deleted. D.Lazard (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Hello professor Lazard, first I will say that I appreciate your contributions to wikipedia articles over the years, thank you very much. Secondly, I do agree that the Teo Mora#Further reading section needs to be trimmed down, but I like to get a fairly complete bibliography immediately and then only remove some less-prominent items afterwards. My usual approach is to move papers with fewer than ~25 cites to the article-talkpage, unless there is a special reason to keep them in the article. (For instance: I would keep the 1977 book on film history despite it having "only" around 10 cites, and I would also keep the four 2009 book-chapters since when added together they have 14+13+12+6= 45 cites in aggregate.) Does that approach sound reasonable to you? And finally, yes, I understand that the article might be deleted, but I did enjoy learning a bit about the people working in this subfield of mathematics, plus I wanted the discussion to reflect that the article-topic *easily* passes WP:PROF. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Don't worry, you made a very nice job on the data you have.
I an quite nervouse by finding my name so much exposed butyou need a correct job.
Now I will help you to fix the date of the papers (hoping this will be useless)
Teo Mora (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Okay, thank you for fixing those dates I was uncertain about. I have eliminated the remainder of the wikimarkup errors,[2] but there might still be other sorts of errors of course! Those remaining flaws are not crucial, iff the article will be deleted.
The decision of whether to retain the article Teo Mora as a bluelink, primarily rests on whether professor Teo Mora (who saves changes via the User_talk:Teo Mora username), is *satisfied* with the state of the article Teo Mora, or not satisfied. As professor Lazard has noted above, there is definitely consensus to delete the article, at the moment. However, that consensus-to-delete primarily rests on professor Teo Mora's desire not to be in an encyclopedia. Since you are actually Teo Mora, what happens next is therefore mostly in your hands: having a wikipedia article can bring some unwanted attention/publicity/etc, and wikipedia is not immune from vandalism so from time to time we get disgruntled former students writing rude comments in articles for instance. In your case, however, the primary downside is that wikipedia policy generally means WP:STICKTOSOURCE, which is a shorthand way of saying that wikipedians are supposed to summarize what reviewers and publishers and peer-reviewers have said about you and your work.
There is some latitude for making wikipedia be *accurate and correct* but with relatively little wiggle room. In your original deletion-request, you noted that you do NOT want your good name to be associated with the published work you now consider to be less important; I understand this perfectly, on a personal level. You also prefer to retain your privacy if that is possible. Wikipedia articles will usually reflect what independent people have said about you and your work, even when what they said is misguided, outdated, or sometimes just flat out wrong! And of course, wikipedia is a popular website and tends to be at the top of search engine results. My advice is to think seriously whether you prefer not to have a wikipedia article at this time. You can look at the history of the Daniel Lazard article by clicking here,[3] and see that sometimes wikipedians are grumpy, but in general the contents of wikipedia articles tend to be stable once they are agreed-upon. Whatever decision you end up with, I will support your wishes, per WP:IAR. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

additional further reading

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

These were listed under Teo Mora#Further reading but had smaller cite-counts than the other publications, so I'm moving them here to the article-talkpage.[4]

I have removed the publications above, for now, on the rough heuristic that publications with 25+ cites at scholar.google.com are sufficiently WP:NOTEWORTHY to be listed in mainspace. This leaves roughly a dozen triple-digit-citecount papers&books noted in the bodyprose, plus an additional dozen double-digit-citecount papers in Teo Mora#Further reading. If other wikipedians feel any of the publications I removed (listed above) are particularly important to understanding Mora's work (or if they gradually accumulate more cites than when I checked in 2017), I'm happy to see them added back into mainspace. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teo_Mora&oldid=1237318747"