User talk:Johsebb

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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

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.

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

(Not sure why you sent an email about this rather than posting to my talk page, I hope it is OK to respond here.)

The notification you got for the Chameleon article was for an edit to the talk page. I noticed that various people over the years had made vandalizing edits, like drive-by blanking people's comments or replacing some of the text with nonsense. So I fixed that vandalism in this edit, and cleaned up some of the headers/orphaned unsigned comments that had been messed with during the vandalizing edits, all of which is both allowed and recommended per the guidelines in WP:TPO. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)