User talk:BruceCamber

The original article was deleted on May 2, 2012

The article from March-April 2012 was deleted. Here is the discussion justifying deletion.

Current searches to focus on appropriate references for this article's rebirth include the NSF, AAAS, and scientific journals. Once we find the proper references, this article will be properly reconstructed. BruceCamber (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historic welcome and other notes

This discussions will all be most helpful to properly write this article for Wikipedia.

Teahouse talkback

Hello, BruceCamber. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Sarah (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Base 2 scientific notation, 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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

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!

Aaron Booth (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! BruceCamber, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Aaron Booth (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These were corrected on April 18. It is obvious now that we need to pay attention to these pages behind the article! BruceCamber (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. When you recently edited Base-2 scientific notation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the original article's Talk Page where's the meat?

At a casual looking-over, I don't see anywhere in the article either an example or a description of anything that fits the title. I do see the word notation sprinkled about, but in context it seems to mean 'doubling' or 'scale' or 'order of magnitude'. —Tamfang (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Redefining notation digs the "original research" hole deeper. —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What follows is possibly the last update of the page on May 1, 2012 prior to deletion.

On measuring the universe Base-2 scientific notation provides a simple granular ordering system for information, being more granular than dividing or multiplying by ten. The process of dividing and multiplying by two is the basis for biological systems. Yet, base-ten scientific notation has formalized the combination of words, base-ten and scientific notation.

In 1957 a little-known high school educator in Holland, Kees Boeke, published Cosmic View. A Nobel laureate in physics, Arthur Compton, wrote the introduction for this work. By 1968 Charles Eames and his wife, Ray, produced a documentary, Powers of Ten based on that book. MIT physics professor, Philip Morrison, narrated the movie and with his wife, Phyllis, they wrote a book, Powers of Ten: A Book About the Relative Size of Things in the Universe and the Effect of Adding another Zero (1982). NASA and Caltech maintain a website that keeps Boeke's original work alive and now people have expanded and corrected Boeke's work. The National High Magnetic Field Laboratory at Florida State University gives him credit for inspiring their effort called "Secret Worlds: The Universe Within."

Just fourteen-years old at the time they initiated their online work, genetic twins Cary and Michael Huang developed a most colorful online presentation that opens the study of scientific notation to a young audience. The concepts around scientific notation became even more popular with the 1996 production of Cosmic Voyage by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum for their 150th anniversary (the 20th for the museum). With IMAX distribution and Morgan Freeman as the narrator, many more people are experiencing the nature of scientific notation.

The work within base-ten scientific notation did not have consistent limits. Because this work started at the human scale and went down inside the small-scale universe, the limit was generally around the limit of the current research of the smallest measurements in their time. Likewise, going out to the large-scale universe, the limits were again the limits of the measurements at their time.

Yet, these limits are increasingly understood to be the Planck unit within the small-scale universe and the edge of the observable universe in the large-scale universe.

Base-2 scientific notation is a floating point notation similar to scientific notation, except that is uses powers of 2 instead of powers of 10.

Use in computer science and throughout academia See other bases for scientific notation.

For example in base 2 scientific notation, decimal 9 is written as: 1.125 x 23 using decimal numbering, or 1.001 E11 using binary numbering.

Base 2 exponential notation has applications within computer science and more widely in many other disciplines throughout the sciences and within education.

The term Base 2 scientific notation is also used to describe the number obtained at each step in an algorithm designed to clarify the form and function of space and time, measurement, and is readily applied to start at the Planck length (also known as the Planck constant and Planck unit) and end at the edges of the observable universe.

Geometrical visualization Consistent across every notation is its inherent mathematics which is defined by scientific notation itself. Also, consistent across every notation are elementary geometries that may be used to demonstrate and provide visuals for base-2 scientific notation. This approach uses the inherent concepts within nested hierarchies of objects, particularly space-filling polyhedra and other basic structures that create polyhedral clusters. It also opens the door to the work within combinatorial geometries.

Elementary geometry may be used to demonstrate and provide visuals for base-2 scientific notation. This approach uses ideas from the nested hierarchies of objects, particularly space-filling polyhedra and other basic structures that create polyhedral clusters. It also opens the door to the work within combinatorial geometries.

A simple starting point is to take the tetrahedron within the platonic solids and take as a given that the initial measurement of each edge is just one meter. This is the human scale. If each edge is divided by two and the dots are connected, a tetrahedron that is half the size of the original is in each corner and an octahedron is in the middle. If each edge of the octahedron is divided by two, and the dots are connected, an octahedron that is half the size of the original is observed in each of the six corners and a tetrahedron in each of the eight faces. In a similar fashion those two platonic solids can be multiplied by two. These nested objects have been observed and documented by many geometers including Buckminster Fuller, Robert Williams, Károly Bezdek, and John Horton Conway.

Taking just the tetrahedron and octahedron, base-two scientific notation can be visualized. With just these two objects, each could be divided and multiplied thousands of times to fill space, theoretically without limit. Yet, in the real world there are necessary limits. The Planck length is the limit in the small-scale universe. The edge of the observable universe is the limit in the large-scale universe.

Counting Notations In this context, the numerical output of any given step is called a "notation".

Starting at the smallest unit of measurement, the Planck length (1.616199(97)x10-35m), multiply it by 2; each notation is progressively larger. In 110 notations, the size is 1.04897371 meters [online citation will be added if the article is not deleted]. From here the edge of the observable universe (1.6x1021 m) is reached in 96 notations. The total is 206 notations, which compares to the orders of magnitude using base-ten scientific notation where some guess there are as few as 40 notations while others as many as 56.

In this context, the numerical output of any given step is called a "notation".

Starting at the smallest unit of measurement, the Planck length (1.616199(97)x10-35m), multiply it by 2; each notation is progressively larger. In 110 notations, the size is 1.04897371 meters [online citation will be added if the article is not deleted]. From here the edge of the observable universe (1.6x1021 m) is reached in 96 notations. The total is 206 notations, which compares to the orders of magnitude using base-ten scientific notation where some guess there are as few as 40 notations while others as many as 56.

Diversity With each successive division and multiplication, base-2 scientific notation using simple geometries and math can encompass and use the other platonic solids to visualize complexity within each notation.

The Archimedean and Catalan solids, and other regular polyhedron are readily encapsulated simply by the number of available points at each notation. Cambridge University maintains a database of some of the clusters and cluster structures.

Base-2 scientific notation using simple geometry and simple math opens the door to study every form and application of geometry and geometric structures. In his book, Space Structures, Their Harmony and Counterpoint,[1] Arthur Loeb analyzes Dirichelt Domains (Voronoi diagram) in such a way that space-filling polyhedra can be distorted (non-symmetrical) without changing the essential nature of the relations within structure (Chapters 16 & 17).

Because each notation encapsulates part of an academic discipline, there is no necessary and conceptual limitation of the diversity of embedded or nested objects.[2]

History Geometers throughout time have contributed to this knowledge of geometric diversity within a particular notation. From Pythagoras, Euclid, Euler, Gauss, and to hundreds of thousands living today, the documentation of these structures within notations is extensive. Buckyballs and Carbon Nanotubes (using electron microscopy) use the same platonic solids as the Frank–Kasper phases[3]. The Weaire–Phelan polyhedral structure has even been used within the human scale for architectural modelling and design, i.e. see the Beijing National Aquatics Centre in China, as well as within chemistry and mineralogy. Each notation has its own rule sets.[4] Some geometers have taken the universe as a whole, from the smallest to the largest, and have described this polyhedral cluster as dodecahedral first in Nature magazine and then in PhysicsWorld (by astrophysicist Jean-Pierre Luminet at the Observatoire de Paris and his group of co-authors.

Constants and universals There are constants, inheritance (in the legal sense as well as that used within object-oriented programming) and extensibility between notations which has become a formal area of study, Polyhedral combinatorics.

206± notations Every scientific discipline is understood to be classifiable within one or more of the 206 notations. Every act of dividing and multiplying involves the formulations and relations of nested objects, embedded objects and space filling. All structures are necessarily related. Every aspect of the academic inquiry from the smallest scale, to the human scale, to the large scale is defined within one of these 206 notations. As a result of using base-2 scientific notation using simple math and geometry, both the calotte model of space filling and the pleisohedron of space filling can be introduced.

Geometries within base-2 scientific notations have been applied to virtually every academic discipline from game theory, computer programming, metallurgy, physics, psychology, econometric theory, linguistics [5] and, of course, cosmological modeling.

See also Base 10 Orders of Magnitude and scale analysis Space filling polyhedron Combinatorial geometries

Bibliography

   Kees Boeke, Cosmic View, The Universe in 40 Jumps, 1957
   An Amazing, Space Filling, Non-regular Tetrahedron Joyce Frost and Peg Cagle, Park City Mathematics Institute, Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540
   Aspects of Form, editor, Lancelot Law Whyte, Bloomington, Indiana, 4th Printing, 1971
   Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics, Howard Eves, Boston: PWS-Kent. Reprint: 1997. Dover, 1990
   Jonathan Doyle's Research Group at http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/~doye/
   Magic Numbers in Polygonal and Polyhedral Clusters, Boon K. Teo and N. J. A. Sloane, Inorg. Chem. 1985, 24, 4545–4558
   Pythagorean triples, rational angles, and space-filling simplices PDF, WD Smith – 2003
   Quasicrystals, Steffen Weber, JCrystalSoft, 2012
   Space Filling Polyhedron http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Space-FillingPolyhedron.html
   Space Structures, Arthur Loeb, Addison–Wesley, Reading 1976
   Structure in Nature is a Strategy for Design, Peter Pearce, MIT press (1978)
   Synergetics I & II, Buckminster Fuller,
   Tilings & Patterns, Branko Grunbaum, 1980 http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1980d.html

References Loeb, Arthur (1976). Space Structures – Their harmony and counterpoint. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. pp. 169. ISBN 0-201-04651-2. Thomson, D'Arcy (1971). On Growth and Form. London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 119ff. ISBN 0 521 09390.

Frank, F. C.; J. S. Kasper (July 1959). "Complex alloy structures regarded as sphere packings". Acta Crystallographica 12, Part 7 (research papers): 483-499. doi:10.1107/S0365110X59001499.

Smith, Warren D. (2003). "Pythagorean triples, rational angles, and space-filling simplices". [1].

Gärdenfors, Peter (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. MIT Press/Bradford Books. ISBN 9780585228372.

External links Bergman clusters, http://met.iisc.ernet.in/~lord/webfiles/Coordinates.pdf, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, Department of Materials Engineering Jonathan P. K. Doyle, Cluster structures, http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/~doye/research/cluster_structure.html See J. Chem. Phys., 119, 1136–1147 (2003) Econometric modelling http://www.spacefillingdesigns.nl Howard Eves, page 131, 1990. Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics. 3rd. ed. Boston: PWS-Kent. [Reprint: 1997. Dover Publications.] Frank–Kasper coordination polyhedra http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.188.2092&rep=rep1&type=pdf Polyhedral Clusters, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, Department of Materials Engineering, http://met.iisc.ernet.in/~lord/webfiles/clusters/polyclusters.pdf Qisheng Lin and John D. Corbett, "New Building Blocks..." "According to higher dimensional projection methods, a series of cubic ACs (approximant crystals) exist with orders (q/p) denoted by any two consecutive Fibonacci numbers, i.e., q/p = 1/1, 2/1, 3/2, 5/3 … F n+1/F n (1)." http://www.pnas.org/content/103/37/13589.full Jean-Pierre Luminet et al. 2003 Nature 425 593 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18368 Eric W.Weisstein, "Space-filling polyhedron" from MathWorld" http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Space-FillingPolyhedron.html

[[Category: Exponentials, Scientific Notation, Base-2, Powers of Two, order of magnitude]

Edition on April 29, 2012

Base-2 scientific notation is a floating point notation similar to scientific notation, except that is uses powers of 2 instead of powers of 10. Note: This article reflects Guy Inchbald's edits. See History note below.

For example in base 2 scientific notation, decimal 9 is written as:

1.125 x 2³ using decimal numbering, or

1.001 E11 using binary numbering.

Base 2 exponential notation has applications within computer science and more widely in many other disciplines throughout the sciences and within education.

The term Base 2 scientific notation is also used to describe the number obtained at each step in an algorithm designed to clarify the form and function of space and time, measurement, between the Planck length (also known as the Planck constant and Planck unit) and the edges of the observable universe.

Use in computer science See other bases for scientific notation.

Use in measuring the universe

Base-2 scientific notation provides a simple granular ordering system for information, being more granular than dividing or multiplying by ten.

The process of dividing and multiplying by two is the basis for biological systems. Yet, base-ten scientific notation has formalized the combination of words, base-ten and scientific notation. That work became well focused in 1957 with publication of Cosmic View. by Kees Boeke. Many people have expanded and corrected Boeke's work. The National High Magnetic Field Laboratory at Florida State University gives him credit for inspiring their effort called "Secret Worlds: The Universe Within."

Just fourteen-years old at the time they initiated their online work, genetic twins Cary and Michael Huang developed a most colorful online presentation that opens the study of scientific notation to a young audience. The concepts around scientific notation became even more popular with the 1996 production of Cosmic Voyage by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum for their 150th anniversary (the 20th for the museum). With IMAX distribution and Morgan Freeman as the narrator, many more people are experiencing the nature of scientific notation.

Geometrical visualisation Elementary geometry may be used to demonstrate and provide visuals for base-2 scientific notation. This approach uses ideas from the nested hierarchies of objects, particularly space-filling polyhedra and other basic structures that create polyhedral clusters. It also opens the door to the work within combinatorial geometries.

A simple starting point is to take the tetrahedron within the platonic solids and take as a given that the initial measurement of each edge is just one meter. This is the human scale. If each edge is divided by two and the dots are connected, a tetrahedron that is half the size of the original is in each corner and an octahedron is in the middle. If each edge of the octahedron is divided by two, and the dots are connected, an octahedron that is half the size of the original is observed in each of the six corners and a tetrahedron in each of the eight faces. In a similar fashion those two platonic solids can be multiplied by two. These nested objects have been observed and documented by many geometers including Buckminster Fuller, Robert Williams, Károly Bezdek, and John Horton Conway.

Taking just the tetrahedron and octahedron, base-two scientific notation can be visualized. With just these two objects, each could be divided and multiplied thousands of times to fill space, theoretically without limit. Yet, in the real world there are necessary limits. The Planck length is the limit in the small-scale universe. The edge of the observable universe is the limit in the large-scale universe.

Counting Notations

In this context, the numerical output of any given step is called a "notation".

Starting at the smallest unit of measurement, the Planck length (1.616199(97)x10⁻³⁵m), multiply it by 2; each notation is progressively larger. In 110 notations, the size is 1.04897371 meters [online citation will be added if the article is not deleted]. From here the edge of the observable universe (1.6x10²¹ m) is reached in 96 notations. The total is 206 notations, which compares to the orders of magnitude using base-ten scientific notation where some guess there are as few as 40 notations while others as many as 56.

Diversity With each successive division and multiplication, base-2 scientific notation using simple geometries and math can encompass and use the other platonic solids to visualize complexity within each notation.

The Archimedean and Catalan solids, and other regular polyhedron are readily encapsulated simply by the number of available points at each notation. Cambridge University maintains a database of some of the clusters and cluster structures.

Base-2 scientific notation using simple geometry and simple math opens the door to study every form and application of geometry and geometric structures. In his book, Space Structures, Their Harmony and Counterpoint,^[1] Arthur Loeb analyzes Dirichelt Domains (Voronoi diagram) in such a way that space-filling polyhedra can be distorted (non-symmetrical) without changing the essential nature of the relations within structure (Chapters 16 & 17).

Because each notation encapsulates part of an academic discipline, there is no necessary and conceptual limitation of the diversity of embedded or nested objects.^[2]

History Geometers throughout time have contributed to this knowledge of geometric diversity within a particular notation. From Pythagoras, Euclid, Euler, Gauss, and to hundreds of thousands living today, the documentation of these structures within notations is extensive. Buckyballs and Carbon Nanotubes (using electron microscopy) use the same platonic solids as the Frank–Kasper phases^[3]. The Weaire–Phelan polyhedral structure has even been used within the human scale for architectural modelling and design, i.e. see the Beijing National Aquatics Centre in China, as well as within chemistry and mineralogy. Each notation has its own rule sets.^[4] Some geometers have taken the universe as a whole, from the smallest to the largest, and have described this polyhedral cluster as dodecahedral first in Nature magazine and then in PhysicsWorld (by astrophysicist Jean-Pierre Luminet at the Observatoire de Paris and his group of co-authors.

Constants and universals There are constants, inheritance (in the legal sense as well as that used within object-oriented programming) and extensibility between notations which has become a formal area of study, Polyhedral combinatorics.

206 notations Every scientific discipline is understood to be classifiable within one or more of the 206 notations. Every act of dividing and multiplying involves the formulations and relations of nested objects, embedded objects and space filling. All structures are necessarily related. Every aspect of the academic inquiry from the smallest scale, to the human scale, to the large scale is defined within one of these 206 notations. As a result of using base-2 scientific notation using simple math and geometry, both the calotte model of space filling and the pleisohedron of space filling can be introduced.

Geometries within base-2 scientific notations have been applied to virtually every academic discipline from game theory, computer programming, metallurgy, physics, psychology, econometric theory, linguistics ^[5] and, of course, cosmological modeling.

See also

Bibliography

Kees Boeke, Cosmic View, The Universe in 40 Jumps. In 1957 Nobel laureate in physics, Arthur Compton, wrote the introduction for this work. In 1968 Charles Eames and his wife, Ray, produced a documentary, Powers of Ten based on that book. MIT physics professor, Philip Morrison, narrated the movie and with his wife, Phyllis, wrote a book, Powers of Ten: A Book About the Relative Size of Things in the Universe and the Effect of Adding another Zero (1982) NASA and Caltech maintain a website that keeps Boeke's original work alive.
An Amazing, Space Filling, Non-regular Tetrahedron Joyce Frost and Peg Cagle, Park City Mathematics Institute, Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540
Aspects of Form, editor, Lancelot Law Whyte, Bloomington, Indiana, 4th Printing, 1971
Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics, Howard Eves, Boston: PWS-Kent. Reprint: 1997. Dover, 1990
Jonathan Doye's Research Group at http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/~doye/
Magic Numbers in Polygonal and Polyhedral Clusters, Boon K. Teo and N. J. A. Sloane, Inorg. Chem. 1985, 24, 4545–4558
Pythagorean triples, rational angles, and space-filling simplices PDF, WD Smith – 2003
Quasicrystals, Steffen Weber, JCrystalSoft, 2012
Space Filling Polyhedron http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Space-FillingPolyhedron.html
Space Structures, Arthur Loeb, Addison–Wesley, Reading 1976
Structure in Nature is a Strategy for Design, Peter Pearce, MIT press (1978)
Synergetics I & II, Buckminster Fuller,
Tilings & Patterns, Branko Grunbaum, 1980 http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1980d.html

References

^ Loeb, Arthur (1976). Space Structures – Their harmony and counterpoint. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. p. 169. ISBN 0-201-04651-2.
^ Thomson, D'Arcy (1971). On Growth and Form. London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 119ff. ISBN 0 521 09390. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
^ Frank, F. C. (1959). "Complex alloy structures regarded as sphere packings". Acta Crystallographica. 12, Part 7 (research papers): 483–499. doi:10.1107/S0365110X59001499. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Smith, Warren D. (2003). "Pythagorean triples, rational angles, and space-filling simplices". [1]. {{cite journal}}: External link in |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help)
^ Gärdenfors, Peter (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. MIT Press/Bradford Books. ISBN 9780585228372.

External links

[[Category:Exponentials]

This deletion discussion could also be deleted and it replicated here to answer objects over a longer peirod of time that we currently have:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems to be a vague WP:OR screed on powers of two (which is already the subject of an article). Despite the name, the article does not even seem to define a "notation" as the word is understood in mathematics. (Of course, there is a base-2 notation described in binary numeral system, but we have an article for that.) The cited sources do not seem to use the terminology "base-2 scientific notation," and online hits for this term all seem to refer to ordinary binary numerals (or occasionally binary floating point).

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Camber

I have spent some time on your MIT web pages and your pages within Wikipedia. You are a scholar and I certainly welcome and appreciate your comments. I would like to involve some of my academic friends to do some heavy editing to see if they can get the article to sit up a little straighter. -BEC

Redirect to floating point. That seems the target most likely to discuss anything being searched for under this search term. OK to merge content if there's anything encyclopedic and sourceable to merge. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Camber

Regarding the floating point redirect, as I said in the article, "Base-2 scientific notation should not to be confused with the base-2 numeral system ..." - BEC

The point is that what other people mean by "base-2 scientific notation" is a binary numeral system of some sort (with scientific notation referring specifically to a floating-point-style enumeration). Wikipedia nomenclature is dictated by common usage (see WP:TITLE); editors are not free to invent their own nomenclatures (see WP:OR and WP:NOT). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Camber

Thank you. I'll continue re-reading scientific notation and the other uses within Wikipedia of that term as well as base-2 within radix. I am beginning to see your point, but would argue that base-ten scientific notation has set a more consistent standard for the use of the two combinations of words, "base-2" and "scientific notation." When referring to the binary numeral system, it appears that it is called base-2 binary notation. When used within logarithm, it does not impute floating-point or the binary numeral system. I'll continue studying Wikipedia. Yet, certainly I see your point when one puts the words "base-two scientific notation" in Google, they are all about normalizing numbers and floating point. Maybe we should change the title to "base-2 geometric notation" but then it looks like original research. Hmm, a Catch 22.

There are four articles that I have found to be helpful in filtering these comments.

Abuse of notation, Exponentiation in the section, Powers of two, Mathematical_notation#Modern_notation, and Power of two -BEC

BruceCamber (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incomprehensible. 86.160.217.111 (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Camber

Is it still incomprehensible? I have made some changes to make it less oblique. - BEC

I honestly don't think this article has any hope of surviving in anything remotely resembling its present form. It reads like a bunch of personal ideas that you have had and connections that you have made, some of which aren't very coherent, loosely grouped together under a confusing title. It does not amount to an encyclopedic article in any way that I can see. Sorry to be so negative, but that's the way I see it. We'll see how the consensus turns out. 86.186.8.216 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC) (BTW, sorry my initial comment "incomprehensible" was so blunt; I didn't realise at the time that this was one person's work, I thought it was an accretion of various editors' inputs over time.)[reply]

Comment from Camber

Apology accepted. It was a bunch of ideas "loosely grouped together." I thought admitting it was project of five high school geometry classes would put the article out in left field immediately. It seems now that the consensus is with you and Stevenj. Again, as I said earlier (below), I can only respect your judgments. I am not well-versed in the deeper-seated traditions of Wikipedia. -BEC

BruceCamber (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be original research. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Camber

There is nothing original about it. Smarter people have blazed the trail. - BEC

Response to Camber - "original research" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. Unless you can show that the concept you are describing is documented in reliable third-party sources (and is described as "base-2 scientific notation") then your article is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Saying it is an extension of "base-10" notation/orders of magnitude is not sufficient. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Camber

I grew up in the Boston area and we used an expression, "Dawn is breaking over Marblehead" when people were slow on their uptake. I am getting it. Slowly. See my comments to Stevenj.

Comments from Camber

Of course as a 64-year old newbie to Wikipedia, I respect your judgments. Also, given my prior work with many professors at MIT (including Phil Morrison of Powers of Ten fame), I respect your disciplined thinking. This note is not so much an apology but a statement about an early observation back in December 2011. I looked for an article about base-2 notation online and on Wikipedia and found none. Even within base-ten, there was incompleteness. Those cited works did not start at the Planck unit and did not go to the edge of the observable universe. As a simple exercise, I wondered how many base-2 notations there were and was quite surprised that the number was so small. I found it curious that so much had been done on base-ten, and nothing on base-2 so proposed the article and it slowly emerged.

So, although my writing style may seem a bit like a diatribe, it is not. It has been an earnest attempt to follow the spirit of Wikipedia.

I would like to see an article on base-2 scientific notation written well enough to be accepted. I would like it to be the strongest possible article. I am open to suggestions, yet, of course, I would gladly withdraw the article that I initiated in place of the editorial work of others that is acceptable to you all. If I had found a base-2 notation article in the beginning, I would have used it, but the message from Wikipedia was "This page does not exist" along with an invitation to create it. I am open to any conversations about writing an encyclopedic article about base-2 scientific notation focusing on its geometries as a starting point.

-Bruce Camber 214-801-8521

BruceCamber (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr Camber, I took the liberty to make the heading you wrote a more compliant bold text, and added a level of indentation. I didn't change one word. 217.251.155.227 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Camber Thank you, 217.251.155.227. Very gracious of you. I would welcome any word changes and word, sentence or paragraph deletions. -BEC

BruceCamber (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. The article mentions many different topics, yet it doesn't go into the necessary details with one. I assume it should treat the topic of powers of two and different phenomena at different scales, like the book "Powers of 10" does. But the writing is unclear and confusing because of the side topics. For example, buckyballs and nanotubes. They are example of structures at the molecular scale. They are not closely related to a base-2 notation. And in my eyes, 206 scales, each different from the others by a factor of two, are not 206 notations either. I would think that a notation is something like,

"Take the decimal number 9. Now multiply or divide by 2 to bring it into the 0.5 (excluded) to 1.0 (included) range, and note the factor as a power of two.

Thus, 9 = 0.5625 ^. 2⁴.

Or put back into the scales picture, the smallest scale to show an object 9 meters in size is the 2⁴ meters scale."

The other topics (buckyballs etc) should go into the other articles rather than this one, at least IMO.

217.251.155.227 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Camber I have deleted the buckyballs and nanotubes from the section "See more" and I have pushed a number of sentences around to focus on the nature of notation and the parallel constructs between notations in geometry. I agree about adding "...different phenomena at different scales" and anticipated that would be done eventually. Again, 217.251.155.227, thank you for your thoughtful response. -BEC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The gist of the article seems to be "We did the same thing that Morrison did in Powers of Ten, only we did it with powers of two; isn't that neat?" That's nice, but I don't see anything here that anyone would look for in an encyclopedia but that isn't already covered somewhere. I can think of lots of good webpages about science and mathematics that don't belong in an encyclopedia. —Tamfang (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as WP:OR/WP:ESSAY. The basic topic is covered at Floating point, but I see nothing worth merging. I'm all for putting the work of high school students on the web, but a Wikipedia article might not be the best way. An illustrated web site somewhere might be more appropriate. -- 202.124.72.217 (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The base 2 scientific notation does exist in both binary and decimal forms, see for example this tutorial note. I disagree that the floating point article would be appropriate - scientific notation would be better. But the base 2 scientific notation has its own areas of application, especially in computer science, and I would hope deserves an article of its own. The current content is poorly referenced inline, so it is hard to say what is valid and what is WP:OR. And anything worth keeping will also need editing for readability. Certainly, the notation itself needs to be properly explained. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give an example of the application of base-2 scientific notation in computer science – other than for floating-point representation – that is described in a reliable source? --Lambiam 20:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  [Edit] Oops, it might have helped if I had actually read your question first. Sorry. Substantial rewrite follows:
  
  Off-hand, no. I suppose there might be an argument for moving that bit of the article to a new one called "Base 2 floating point notation", or merging it with floating point, but the present title; a) is preferable because it refers to the more general case and is sometimes used, and b) it offers the opportunity to clarify the different usages of the more general term. To back this view up:
  
  Wallis, W.D.; A beginner's guide to discrete mathematics, Birkhauser (2011), page 20:
  "Floating point notation is a special form of scientific notation" (Wallis' italics)
  
  and
  
  "One can also use floating point notation in bases other than 10—in base 2, ..."
  As so often, experts coming from different areas have subtly different takes on meanings and definitions, so that drawing a consistent view from a superficial scan of sources is pretty impossible. I give you my best shot in the time I can spare, but am open to stronger counter-examples! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Errm... these examples do not exactly fit the profile of "other than for floating-point representation". --Lambiam 21:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies - now rewritten. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 20:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scientific notation#Other bases. What can be said about the topic does not justify a separate article. The present article is mostly synthesis of material that is not really about notation per se, but some of it might find use somewhere else in our encyclopedia. --Lambiam 05:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a disambiguation link rather than a full redirect. Those of us familiar with this usage have to keep an open mind over whether other communities might have hijacked the term to mean something else. If someone has, and if there is enough material out there, then that merits its own place on Wikipedia. I saw some evidence of this from Google searches, so at this time I find it hard to justify wholesale deletion. I think it fair to give the "cosmic" discussion of the term a chance to develop greater encyclopedic rigour before deciding whether to delete. Further, I don't think that computer scientists are best placed to make that judgement (having been disambiguated to the sidelines, as it were), the material to date suggests that this is more a matter for that community itself; perhaps philosophers, historians and teachers of mathematics and physics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You write "If someone has, and if there is enough material out there, then ...", but you do not give any verifiable evidence that this hypothetical situation has become reality. If we make this a dab page, we need at least two about equally plausible meanings for the term. I can think of only one, which is: scientific notation using base 2. --Lambiam 20:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. However the article was created by an inexperienced editor. I'd just like to give him and his community a little more time to see if they can fix it up, before we hit them with a wholesale deletion. Is there some way to flag this deletion request for say revisiting in a few weeks' time? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original author's explanations on this thread already make it clear that his other meaning (a sequence of "notations" describing lengthscales increasing by factors of two from the Planck length, along with various analogies in geometry) is WP:OR. No valid justification has been given for any delay here. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's who in constructing and deconstructing this article

(cur | prev) 12:28, 29 April 2012‎ Steelpillow (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,102 bytes) (+59)‎ . . (→‎Use in computer science: link) (undo)
(cur | prev) 04:43, 28 April 2012‎ Lambiam (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,043 bytes) (-17)‎ . . (→‎Bibliography: typo) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:28, 27 April 2012‎ Lambiam (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,060 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (correction) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:02, 27 April 2012‎ Steelpillow (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,059 bytes) (-405)‎ . . (→‎Use in measuring the universe: some trimming & tidying) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:08, 27 April 2012‎ Steelpillow (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,464 bytes) (+54)‎ . . (clarify) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:06, 27 April 2012‎ Steelpillow (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,410 bytes) (-73)‎ . . (added binary representation) (undo)
(cur | prev) 11:00, 27 April 2012‎ Steelpillow (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,483 bytes) (-577)‎ . . (attempt to begin re-purposing) (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:56, 27 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,060 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:42, 27 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,061 bytes) (+54)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:35, 27 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,007 bytes) (-30)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:19, 27 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,037 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (→‎Counting Notations) (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:11, 27 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,011 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:08, 27 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,992 bytes) (+610)‎ . . (Responding to comments by Wikipedia's editors) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:39, 26 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,382 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎History of research) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:35, 26 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,383 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Counting Notations) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:33, 26 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,381 bytes) (+58)‎ . . (Simplifying) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:44, 26 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,323 bytes) (+199)‎ . . (Note about the REFB) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:32, 26 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,124 bytes) (0)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:03, 26 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,124 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎206 notations) (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:01, 26 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,125 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Counting Notations) (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:01, 26 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,124 bytes) (+265)‎ . . (→‎Counting Notations) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:53, 26 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,859 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (→‎The process) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:49, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,832 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (→‎Diversity) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:45, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,843 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:43, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,802 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:40, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,763 bytes) (+40)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 21:33, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,723 bytes) (+25)‎ . . (→‎Bibliography) (undo)
(cur | prev) 21:29, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,698 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎History of research) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:02, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,699 bytes) (-49)‎ . . (→‎See also) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:01, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,748 bytes) (+129)‎ . . (→‎History of research) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:49, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,619 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (→‎History of research) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:31, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,811 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (→‎206 notations) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:27, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,820 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎History of research) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:21, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,815 bytes) (+13)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:36, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,802 bytes) (0)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:32, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,802 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Counting Notations) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:31, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,802 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Counting Notations) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:29, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,801 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (→‎The process) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:19, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,797 bytes) (-755)‎ . . (Rssponding to comments by Wikipedia editors) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:39, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,552 bytes) (+692)‎ . . (Responding to comments by Wikipedia's editors) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:02, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,860 bytes) (-36)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:00, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,896 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:57, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,889 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:55, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,897 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:53, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,858 bytes) (+860)‎ . . (The partial response to suggestions and comments by Wkipedia editors) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:58, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,998 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎206 notations) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:57, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,999 bytes) (-52)‎ . . (→‎Diversity) (undo)
(cur | prev) 02:48, 25 April 2012‎ BruceCamber (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,051 bytes) (-786)‎ . . (Scaling back the article given that it is nominated for deletion) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:30, 24 April 2012‎ Stevenj (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,837 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base-2 scientific notation) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:29, 24 April 2012‎ Stevenj (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,838 bytes) (+403)‎ . . (afdl) (undo)

BruceCamber (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smallest-to-largest.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! - Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smallest-to-largest concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smallest-to-largest, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smallest-to-largest

Hello BruceCamber. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Smallest-to-largest".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smallest-to-largest}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rentsen Enkhbat

The article Rentsen Enkhbat has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ari lehto moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ari lehto, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating Patricio Letelier.

User:Willbb234 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

add removed external links as references

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willbb234}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ari Lehto (September 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Headbomb was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ari Lehto and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ari Lehto, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Spekkens (November 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mcmatter was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

We need to see references about the subject not from the subject. They need to be Reliable Published Sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Robert Spekkens and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Robert Spekkens, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Robert Spekkens concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Robert Spekkens, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ari Lehto concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ari Lehto, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ari Lehto

Hello, BruceCamber. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ari Lehto".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dean Rickles (May 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vinegarymass911 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dean Rickles and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dean Rickles, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Robert Spekkens

Hello, BruceCamber. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Robert Spekkens".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:BruceCamber

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:BruceCamber, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 13:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Loeb, Arthur (1976). Space Structures – Their harmony and counterpoint. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. p. 169. ISBN 0-201-04651-2.

[bare_url-2] Thomson, D'Arcy (1971). On Growth and Form. London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 119ff. ISBN 0 521 09390. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)

[3] Frank, F. C. (1959). "Complex alloy structures regarded as sphere packings". Acta Crystallographica. 12, Part 7 (research papers): 483–499. doi:10.1107/S0365110X59001499. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[Pythagoras-4] Smith, Warren D. (2003). "Pythagorean triples, rational angles, and space-filling simplices". [1]. {{cite journal}}: External link in |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help)

[Gardenfors:2000-5] Gärdenfors, Peter (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. MIT Press/Bradford Books. ISBN 9780585228372.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]