User talk:Gumum

Welcome![edit]

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ruud 12:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diafix[edit]

Hello, I've undid your addition of the term "diafix" to the String and Substring articles. The term does not seem to be used beyond the article by Peter van der Helm you cited. See WP:NEO for some more details on why adding such definitions are discouraged. Cheers, —Ruud 12:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyperstring.gif missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Hyperstring.gif

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 00:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Transparallel processing for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transparallel processing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transparallel processing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alsee (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we get so busy doing stuff that needs doing that we forget to help the newcomers.[edit]

Welcome. I'm a regular editor, just like you. I've just been around longer. We don't expect new editors to know all of Wikipedia's policies when they start. We invite people to just start editing, we fix any problems when we spot them, and usually cite the policy justification for the fix.

Primary sources (such as new research published in science journals) have caused a lot of problems in the past, so policies limit where and how they can be used. In order to keep an article it needs to have multiple reliable independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the topic. That means stuff like books, newspapers, possibly journal-staff writing secondary coverage, etc. Your articles will be kept if you can show those kinds of sources.

You probably don't need to dig through these full policy pages, but WP:NOTABILITY is the much longer explanation for what articles are kept or deleted. Here's the long definition of WP:RELIABLE Sources, and here's the main discussion of WP:PRIMARY and Secondary sources.

I don't mean to target you, but it looks like probably all of your edits so far trip over various rules. For example you added external links in Chini Lake and Orang Asli - it looks like you linked to someone's personal webpages. Our External Links policy says to avoid Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. We don't try to pass judgement about the content on those pages, the information there could be excellent. The problem is that it would take a subject-expert to evaluate the content, and the owner of the page could arbitrarily change what's there. The nature of the pages makes them inappropriate to use.

Systematically adding the same source to multiple articles is considered WP:CITESPAM. Even if your intention was good, you weren't finding the best sources to support each article.... you were effectively using the articles to promote that particular source. And primary research sources are very low quality sources for our purposes.

WP:WEIGHT says that an article should primarily cover the most common information and viewpoints that exist in reliable sources, it says that a smaller portion of an article should cover significant minority viewpoints and aspects of a topic, and it says articles should not cover viewpoints and aspects that are rare in reliable sources. I could be mistaken, but I believe that approximately zero percent of sources on Quantum Computing currently cover Transparallelism. That means Transparallelism doesn't belong in the Quantum Computing article. Transparallelism might be right, Transparallelism might be the next big thing, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means we report what secondary sources say - after many of them say it. Our job isn't to promote new ideas, our job is to provide encyclopedic coverage of old ideas.

Generally editors would have just changed that stuff immediately with an edit-summary explanation, but I decided to file the Article for Deletion first. If I made a mistake, if there are sufficient sources to keep the Transparallelism articles, then maybe discussion of Transparallelism does belong in the other articles. If the Transparallelism articles are deleted then it's more clear to pull Transparallelism out of Quantum Computing and wherever else.

If you happen to agree that the links to personal-web-pages or any other edits you made should be removed or revised, you might even seize this time to improve them yourself :)

Regarding WP:Conflict_of_interest: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. On Wikipedia it could be considered harassment to try to out an editor's real identity. Right now I'm making a common observation that your narrowly focused editing is very suggestive of a conflict of interest here... or maybe you're just a really big fan of the subject. And I'm making a generic note that the software flagged a possible conflict of interest. If you expressly have no objection to your Wiki account potentially being linked to a real-world identity then I can bluntly explain why the software flagged a possible COI. Alsee (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction[edit]

External links in Chini Lake and Orang Asli: One link had apparently already been renoved, and I now removed to other one too -- even though I see no harm in providing the general WP public with first-hand anthropological information relevant to these topics.

Transparallel processing: I see no harm in informing the general WP public about an already feasible form of classical computing with the same computing power as promised by quantum computers, but I acknowledge that this page relies -- too narrowly for WP -- on primary sources. I already decoupled it from other pages, and as far as I am concerned, this page can be deleted (which I leave to you).

Transparallel mind: Just as quantum mind, this concept stands in a long tradition of thinking about the human mind -- as I now indicated more clearly. I think that quantum mind therefore deserves a WP page, and by the same token, transparallel mind too. Gumum (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]