User talk:Johsebb

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome...

Hello, Johsebb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Æo (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to the Vector 2022 RfC was moved

Hello Johsebb,

This is to let you know that your comment to the recent RfC about the withdrawal of Vector 2022 and the restoration of Vector 2010 as the default interface has been moved from the "support" section to the "neutral" section (see: 1, 2, 3) because it appeared to express a neutral opinion. Æo (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aliasing (factorial experiments) (August 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Paul Vaurie were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not enough inline citations, does not read like a Wikipedia article, and overly complicated to the average reader.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aliasing (factorial experiments) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johsebb! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Draft:Aliasing (factorial experiments)

I review articles at AfC, but mathematics is not my field. I have put a note on the talk page of the mathematics project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, asking for help. Articles are only rejected at AfC if the topic is unsuitable for the encyclopedia. That will not happen with your article. See WP:Rejected.

My first impression of the draft was that it would make a very good section in a textbook. And that is a problem here since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Starting with an example is in a very instructional mode, as is speaking directly to the reader. No editor who starts here has ever written for an encyclopedia before, so we all have a learning curve. For help see User:XOR'easter/So, you've decided to write about physics and/or mathematics on Wikipedia, particularly How do we organize an article?.

Additionally everything must have a source. Older technical articles were written at a time when material that was in textbooks was thought not to need sourcing, but we learned the hard way that this could be a problem (particularly in physics articles, not so much in math). Provide the sources for all the material, including examples. I find this to be a pain in the neck when writing about things I know, but we need to do this.

Thank you for being willing to contribute to Wikipedia in such a technical area. We need more editors who can do this. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- I very much appreciate these comments. It does look like I have a lot of rewriting (and rethinking) to do. Johsebb (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could clarify one thing for me: Why is a link to a Wikipedia article not sufficient as a citation? The introduction in my draft has a number of such links. Johsebb (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your article should have links to other Wikipedia articles; its important to have a web of hyperlinks among the articles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. But these cannot be considered references. We require reliably published sources, which in most cases means under some sort of editorial control. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so doesn't meet that level of reliability. See WP:NOTSOURCE.

There is a lot of policy involved in maintaining the quality of a user-generated encyclopedia. No one starts out knowing this stuff so keep asking questions as needed. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- I greatly appreciate your clear explanations. Johsebb (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a further question about how to proceed.

It appears to me that this article needs massive rewriting in order to bring it into proper form. I have an idea of how I would go about that (your comments are a big help), and I'm looking forward to doing this. My concern is that I'll need a lot of time to do this, and I don't want the article to be deleted in the meantime. Thus I see three possibilities: (1) I can make minor changes to the existing draft just to keep it "current". (2) I can gradually replace parts of it as I work. (3) I can withdraw the article and resubmit it when I feel it's ready.

The problem with (1) and (2) is that an editor who looks at it will see a very unfinished product, and a confusing one in the case of (2). And there are probably problems with (3) that I'm not aware of (I'm not even sure how one would go about this).

Perhaps there is a way to do (2) while postponing any editorial judgment, until I (somehow) indicate that it's ready. And perhaps there's a fourth approach that I haven't thought of. I would be very grateful for your thoughts on the best way forward. Thanks in advance. Johsebb (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aliasing (factorial experiments) (February 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by The Herald were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Needs cleanup and more inline citations. Also need a rewriting on section headings and per MOS:ORDER. Notability is also not clearly established.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aliasing (factorial experiments) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined sfn references in Factorial experiment

Hi, in the article Factorial experiment you introduced {{harvtxt|Hocking |1985 |page=73}} in this edit, and {{harvtxt|Box|Hunter|Hunter|1978|page=307}} in this edit. Unfortunatley neither source is defined in the article. This means that nobody can look them up, and also places the article in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing sources it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you very much for pointing this out!

With this correction, the article now cites two editions of Box/Hunter/Hunter. I will combine these as soon as I obtain a copy of the second edition. Johsebb (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback notice

Hello, Johsebb. You have new messages at The Herald's talk page.
Message added 03:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback notice

Hello, Johsebb. You have new messages at The Herald's talk page.
Message added 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aliasing (factorial experiments) (July 31)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aliasing (factorial experiments) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Toadette^Edit! 11:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Johsebb! The thread you created at the Teahouse, About, For, Other uses, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]