NOTE: I plan to manually archive this talk page every year. To keep things organized, all discussions from the year should go in Archive n. Also, don't warn me about the blockchain and cryptocurrency general sanctions - I was already notified back in 2021. (This message shouldn't get archived, however.) Duckmather (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 14
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
It appears that you reversed the order of a couple of sections of this proposed article, putting Aliasing_(factorial_experiments)#Definitions before Aliasing_(factorial_experiments)#Examples. If there is a policy that definitions come before examples, please point me to it. If this is simply your opinion, please explain.
Note that the change requires rewording, since the Definitions section still refers to examples "above". More to the point, the examples are useful in motivating the definitions, which are rather abstract and hard to understand by themselves. That is why I originally had the examples first.
I accept your other modifications, but would prefer to see this one reversed. I hope to hear from you soon. Johsebb (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is indeed just my opinion. I think the standard and encyclopedic way is to define something first and to motivate or describe it second. (The opposite order seems more pedagogical, which is fine for either teaching very well-established stuff or giving a talk, but in writing it seems a little demeaning.)
As for the wording issue: thanks for pointing it out! I'll fix it shortly. Duckmather (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that the new order is going to lose people immediately. The abstract definition assumes a lot of background, and that background needs some exposition before the definition. I don't see anything demeaning about this.
Take a look, for instance, at Lie_algebra. It gives an example before going to the abstract definition. I'm sure there are other examples in Wikipedia.
I ask that you restore the original order (and wording) but maybe tag the article so that I can hear other opinions about this. Johsebb (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Aliasing (factorial experiments). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because Needs editorial assistance from WikiProject Mathematics.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Johsebb (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deaths in October 1988, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Kane.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Tokyo Revengers. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
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.
Hello, Duckmather!
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! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bryce Maximus James
You missed the point of my CSD. Bryce Maximus James and Bryce James are the same exact person. And Bruce James was a redirect to Lebron James. To me that is duplicating a subject. But if you don’t care that someone is recreating the topic, why should I care? BostonMensa (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Archiving closed AfDs
With respect to this edit, it was unnecessary and perhaps even a tiny bit detrimental: the page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Mathematics is regularly archived by User:AnomieBOT (as you can see from its history); I don't know how long it leaves closed AfDs on the page, but I think it's a day or so (which gives people who check that page a chance to see the outcome). Because you removed it, it did not get recorded on the archive of that page. --JBL (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
High explosive violent reaction
Hello. Thank you for the edits on the HEVR page, they were generally an improvement. That said, why did you feel that removing the internal links is an improvement? I'm not as experienced an editor as you are, but I feel like they made the article better. Hope to hear from you. DoktorScience (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DoktorScience: On Wikipedia, we usually avoid putting external links in running prose, saving them for either the references section or a dedicated "External links" section. See Wikipedia:External links for the official text of this policy. If you have any other suggestions on improving the High explosive violent reaction article (note that the topic's out of my field of expertise, but I can try nevertheless), I would be happy to hear them anyways! Duckmather (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, thank you for the explanation. I was not aware of that policy and will follow it from now on. It's a small thing, but I do think those external links helped make the article better. As I'd just created the article on Saturday, if you'd let me know of that policy on my Talk page, or the HEVR talk page, I would have made the change by adding an "External link" section, or you could have created an external link section. Simply deleting all the links makes it more work for whomever puts in the time to put them back in the proper place. That said, thank you, your other edits were also helpful. DoktorScience (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JASpencer: Hello (and warning: this is a much longer reply than I initally envisioned)! I tend to gravitate towards the articles listed there that have a substantial amount of prose (which I can verify in a single click using the Wikipedia:Prosesize gadget). If the article qualifies, I remove the stub tag, and often I do some tagging or minor cleanup in the same edit as well if I notice any issues (such as capitalized headers or whatnot). I also rerate the article on its talk page if needed. Furthermore, I also tend to work from the top of the list downwards (though the list is long enough that I usually don't get past the top ~50 by the time it refreshes).
This comment suggests a complementary strategy that you could follow: Triage the articles that don't have enough prose, but (almost always in my experience) have an exorbitant amount of tablecruft instead. I've been avoiding this task, since I have no idea whether to mark them as List-class, expand them with actual prose, consider them to be genuine long stubs, or something else entirely. Hopefully you have a better intuition with respect to this! Furthermore, you could also work from the bottom or middle as well, since those are (I am now realizing) also quite long relative to your average stub despite being the shortest of the bunch. Duckmather (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on CQV requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
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. Karnataka (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on CQP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
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. Karnataka (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Mezmur. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Losipov (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Worldcoin info mistake
Hi @Duckmather, I noticed that you accidently used the WDC token ticker on the worldcoin infobox instead of WLD. Could you kindly update it?
I'm part of the worldcoin ecosystem so I'm aware that this type of change can't be made by me for COI.
If you like I'm also happy to share the company logo to add as well - not sure what the rules are in this regard.
Cheers Themoss2 (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Themoss2: Hello, and welcome to English Wikipedia! I've just fixed this error; thank you for pointing it out! (It seems that there is an entire other "Worldcoin", though I strongly doubt that it meets our notability criteria.)
With respect to the logo, I was actually wondering about uploading it myself (I was able to find it as a static image after opening up the official website's source code with the developer tools). However, I was uncertain about whether to put it here in the English Wikipedia's File namespace (where primarily non-free images live), or to put it in Wikimedia Commons (for freely licensed images that can be reused across all of the WMF wikis).
Why? Logos are normally copyrighted (as so many things are), but there is a template called ((PD-textlogo)) (Commons's version is commons:Template:PD-textlogo) which stipulates that logos composed of "simple geometric shapes or text" or similar automatically fall into the public domain (and here is a big list of examples). Now, I do think that Worldcoin's logo is a pretty simple geometric shape, but since I lack experience with uploading files and copyright law(if you want expertise on this, you'd have better luck looking through Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons), I was uncertain whether it was simple enough for ((PD-textlogo)) to apply.
Of course, since you're here on behalf of Worldcoin itself, there's a much simpler workaround for all this: Simply declare, on behalf of the Worldcoin team, that the logo is available for reuse under a Creative Commons license, so that I can upload it without hassles. Or - even simpler - upload the logo yourself using the file upload wizard, and declare the image's freedom from copyright infringement as you go.
This was an awfully long message for me to type up.
Thanks for applying the fix so quickly @Duckmather and for the detailed explanation of options. Let me look into the logo copyright option and get back to you. Themoss2 (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Duckmather, the logos have been added to Wikimedia - here are the files: . Let me know if this is what you needed.
Also saw that there's a new "design" section on Worldcoin entry that needs expansion. What type of information is needed? Design of the orb? Other? I'm happy to provide relevant sources and information. Themoss2 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Themoss2: Thank you for the logos! I am adding the bigger one to the article.
The "Design" section is basically about how Worldcoin works and what makes it special compared to other cryptocurrencies (such as the orb, the iris hash thing, etc). Many Wikipedia articles on cryptocurrencies have sections about designs; see for example Bitcoin#Design or Ethereum#Design, and I could go on.
I'm not actually looking for your help this time, though; I think the French Wikipedia article already has a fair amount of info in a language I understand, so all I need to do is translate it. Duckmather (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 10
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Shelovesneo, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Exceeding, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Shelovesneo)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
@Shelovesneo and Alexandermcnabb: The "article" you nominated for speedy deletion is actually a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Such redirects are quite common and well-received (you can find a big list of all of them at Category:Redirects to Wiktionary). I'm pinging Alexandermcnabb since they also nominated the same page for speedy deletion shortly after you (Shelovesneo) did, albeit under a different criterion. Duckmather (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
Duckmather has been trouted for removing the gbmappingsmall template from the Ansty and Staplefield UK parish. As stated on the Talk page these are useful markers for people using this information. I will be reverting changes unless you can provide a solid argument why the template should ony be used on wikidata Riparia Riparia (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Riparia riparia: These markers distract a lot from the overall flow of the article, hence why I removed them at first. They also make the article read like a tour guide, which Wikipedia is not (see WP:NOTTOURISTGUIDE); the pins would be more than welcome at Wikivoyage, however. Duckmather (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to hear suggestions of how we can include map links in a more elegant way, however as a page dedicated to a geographic area, information source and wiki, pin pointing the areas being talked about is important. Please propose your modification before reverting a change in the relevant talk page. Thanks Riparia Riparia (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Phuzion was:
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)
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.
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:Covariate shift 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.
Just wanted to mention that though there are a decent number of references, most are from the subject himself or from an organization he is associated with. WMrapids (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Hello Duckmather! Your additions to Draft:Diband tree have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Our policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The redirect Norph has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 13 § Norph until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Duckmather! Your additions to Draft:Diband tree have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.