User talk:WofWca

Conversation at Talk:Snowflake (software)

I left you a message at Talk:Snowflake (software). HLHJ (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, WofWca. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with.

Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

If you wish to continue contributing, please first consider citing other reliable secondary sources such as review articles that were written by other researchers in your field and that are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite sources for which you may have a conflict of interest, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{Edit COI}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added. MrOllie (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not affiliated with Tor and people who work on it, though I have made a few contributions to the project.

I am just familiar with the sources and I am citing them where appropriate. The sources are IMO reliable as those are scientific papers. WofWca (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie WofWca (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've added cites to the same person (and links to bamsoftware.com) to just about every page you have touched. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia and not to promote one person's work, I suggest you broaden your citations. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie The David Fifield thesis is in public domain, this is why I decided to use the illustrations from it, and cite it in addition. I do not even know what they look like. This is just the field that I am familiar with, and the papers that I am familiar with, and I am doing what I can to build an encyclopedia, and I am making sure the citations are appropriate. WofWca (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie I don't work in the AC part of the Tor ecosystem, but know it well enough that I can confirm 1. @WofWca doesn't have any official affiliation with the Tor Project (though neither does David Fifield, technically); and 2. David Fifield is a very big name in that space (both on the research and the development side, having effectively invented then implemented the bulk of the techniques that make Snowflake and similar tools work), and he happens to also be known for explaining things well, so it does not surprise me that he would be a great source for content here. That said, I suspect this will run into the problem we have on the core Tor page, where it can be difficult to find accurate secondary sources (which David Fifield, as a central figure in the space, is not). Tga (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Delta Chat (August 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CFA 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:

Please don't WP:REFBOMB the article.

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:Delta Chat 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.

C F A 💬 03:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WofWca! 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! C F A 💬 03:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]