Talk:Leslie Kolodziejski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

Subject is notable by WP:PROF criterion 3: "a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor," through the Optical Society fellowship. Removing notability tag for that reason. Markus Pössel (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...or would have done that if User:Winged Blades of Godric hadn't done the same, for the same reasons, at the same time. Markus Pössel (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

Career Develolpment Chairs are almost always trivial positions. We are not writing a chronological resume of her designations; the most significant ones matter. We don't source abstracts of each research, a person had authored. There's a better way to summarise them in entirety. Also, some of the removed sentences fails WP:INTEGRITY. (The MITNews source nowhere speaks about her working on epitaxy of certain specific semiconductors.) Being on Commitee of Sexual Misconduct et al or hers' hosting routine workshops are also routine (WP:MILL) stuff. Similar for intra-university honors. WBGconverse 10:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Where does it say that "Career Development Chairs" are trivial positions? They are named chairs, and they fit the definition linked in WP:PROF (which lists named chairs as an explicit notability criterion!), namely Financial_endowment#Endowed_professorships. We are talking about a top research university, to boot. MIT lists the development chairs in question on their general page listing named professorships for that year, namely here. By what criteria not amounting to WP:OR do you decide that something like this is "trivial"? Markus Pössel (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I missed your ping. Will be replying but after a delay of day or two as to the locus of early career proffesorships and/or career development proffesorships. Going offline. WBGconverse 11:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Scientist[edit]

@Jesswade88: - Here is a source that seems to have some meat to it, especially if you have access to the full text through a university library. At any rate, I lack the technical expertise to interpret what they're talking about. GMGtalk 12:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the journal except that I can't locate the article. Need to download the 4 issues and then search.WBGconverse 12:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Values[edit]

They're behind this show.[1][2][3][4] François Robere (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]