User talk:Rob.Corless

Hello, Rob.Corless, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Rob.Corless. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Rob.Corless! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Are "Bohemian Matrices" notable enough?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.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 Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bohemian Matrices has been accepted

Bohemian Matrices, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Rob.Corless! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Policy on reproducibility of Wikipedia examples (math, for me), 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 Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Quasilinearization has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Quasilinearization. Thanks! Greenman (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a reference, as you requested; I also added a link on the talk page to the original "Request" for this article. I would not have written this article had there not been such a request; but I don't know how to answer that request there (I will go look now).

Rob.Corless (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Quasilinearization (July 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Likely notable but needs to be rewritten.

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:Quasilinearization and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Quasilinearization, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

S0091 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rob.Corless! 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! S0091 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi Rob, thank you for your submission. The reason I declined the draft is because a Wikipedia article should not ask anything of the reader ("consider"), guide them on how to do something (see WP:NOTHOWTO), or draw conclusions. Also, you have been around long enough that you do not have to go through WP:AfC so if you believe the article is sufficient from a notability perspective, you can move it mainspace yourself (see WP:MOVE for instructions). Maybe just spruce up the language and a bit and move it or post a note at the WikiProject Mathematics talk page to get some guidance. I don't think it would be nominated for deletion and the issue with WP:AfC is there are not enough reviewers with mathematical expertise so drafts like these unfortunately languish. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I have tried to spruce up the language by removing the instructions to do things, and making the paragraphs statements of facts instead of instructions for how to do things (in my defense, that's kind of what I do: write textbooks and expository articles which are active in tone). Learning to write with an encyclopedic tone is a new challenge for me, and I am keen to try. You might think that I have been around long enough to know these kinds of things, but, no, I'm still a newbie (considering how little time I have spent editing, not considering how long the intervals are between edits!). So thank you for the encouragement to just WP:MOVE it myself. I'll mull over my edits for a few days before I do that, so if you want to go and have a look at what I have done today and yesterday, I would be grateful for further comment. Rob.Corless (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Rob.Corless

Thank you for creating Zero stability.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article, though more sources are needed.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn:

Thank you---I shall add more sources, then. Nice excuse to go look for Germund Dahlquist's original paper, but in any case I could add a link to John Butcher's book.

Rob.Corless (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Quasilinearization (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

Aside from the still essay-like quality, there are large portions of this which are unsourced.

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:Quasilinearization 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.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Quasilinearization

Hello, Rob.Corless. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Quasilinearization".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 12:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that the article as written has no future on Wikipedia. It was both requested (I think it's still on the list of requests) and rejected for not being encyclopedic tone because it has an example (I guess), though my comments on what counts as original research were ignored, maybe not even noticed. I should have kept a copy, though. Can I request a copy for myself? Or is that too much trouble? I can probably reconstitute it from memory if it's too much trouble to find. Rob.Corless (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of the contents is available here. ✗plicit 13:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm thinking to rewrite from scratch, but at least the references will be kept. Rob.Corless (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Rob.Corless. Thank you for your work on Quasilinearization. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

The current version focuses on just one selective use of the approach. To my knowledge it is much, much more general than this article indicates. For instance there are Taylor series expansions used everywhere in science, and linear approximations are heavily used for Optimization and Non-Linear problems. This article needs a much wider context than it currently has. Related, there may well be an article this should be merged into, I am not certain.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right! My co-author Nic Fillion and I are just writing a book on Perturbation using backward error, and the notion of quasilinearization is indeed general. I'll consult with Nic (who is a philosopher of science) and we shall see what we can do to improve this article, within the Wikipedia bounds. Rob.Corless (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]