User talk:Samuel Adrian Antz

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot for your message, I will surely give the links a read! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Botschafter der Sterne moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Botschafter der Sterne, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  // Timothy :: talk  21:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! As explained on the talk page of the site (which I don't know if you read), I accidently published the page after realizing, I am not on the german, but english Wikipedia page, and wanted to leave. I still intend to write the english page for the novel after writing the german page, so thanks a lot for moving the template to the draftspace. Sorry for my mistake, I am quite new to Wikipedia. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Botschafter der Sterne, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Botschafter der Sterne[edit]

Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Botschafter der Sterne".

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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrows of Time moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to The Arrows of Time. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, 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 OR move the page back. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I might need a bit more context for this, because I don't really understand what is missing here. Even if the four sources from the author's website about developing the theory behind are taken out as they're not independent, the article still has two sources for the scientific background (the original papers which marked their discovery or proposal) and three different and independent sources to cite four reviews for the novel (or trilogy). Why isn't that enough to establish notability? And even if it isn't, why does the whole article have to be removed and not marked with a notification about it (which happened when I published the article for the prequel "The Clockwork Rocket" two months ago, after which I searched and added two new receptions in the meantime)? Thank you for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just submitted the draft, which now includes ten new references, so more than double as much as previously. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Arrows of Time (December 29)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MicrobiologyMarcus was: 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.
microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 18:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening! I really need another explanation for what is wrong about my article about "The Arrows of Time". I seriously don't understand it at all and the person, which has deleted the article two days ago and moved it into the draft space, unfortnutely hasn't explained it to me yet when I asked for further clarification. (The only thing I did understand was because of missing sources, so I have added every single one I could find, resulting in ten more.)
I hope you can explain me your comments: Why "fictional subjects"? The book is real and the science within is as real as it can get. The author does not speculate concerning the physics, but actually calculates it. (And even if, there are plenty of Wikipedia articles on science-fiction with pretty speculative elements like beaming in Star Trek or light sabers in Star Wars.) Antimatter for example is mentioned in my article and certainly not fictional. "articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis": I did that, even in great detail, in the "Background (mathematics and physics)" section. The references for example contain a (non-fictional) academic paper by the famous theoretical physicist Richard Feynman, which first describes an idea used in the novel. "not just a summary of the plot": But it's not? There is a "Background (literature)" section with three different informations about translation, prices won or nomtinations and connection with other works. There is a "Background (mathematics and physics)" section to explain the scientific background with references to original academic papers. There is a "Reception" section with quotes from two well-known authors, two other reviews in more detail and three more mentioned that have only appeared in print. What exactly is missing here? I've also searched through how Wikipedia pages of other novels came to be before publishing them. For example Hollow City actually started as just a pure plot description page and only got a note instead of a deletion and transfer to draft space. Why?
I really hope you can help me as I really don't understand it. I wrote The Clockwork Rocket (first book of the trilogy), The Eternal Flame (second book of the trilogy) and Dichronauts (other book with similar premise) the exactly same way and they went undeleted even with less additional information and references. (Researching for for this draft also helped me improve them later.) The four corresponding german Wikipedia pages did as well. What makes this one stand out so much among them?
I'm asking because this draft is the best possible article I can offer. If the problem is that the plot takes too much space relatively, then I basically only have two options: Filling up the rest, but as I've already added everything important I've found, it would only be pointless fluff only pretending to contribute and I'm certainly not going to do that. Or I could shorten the plot description, but I already did that many times when writing the article to really only keep core parts. The final version might still be above average in length, but I'd say that for a novel complex enough to need actual diagrams to explain what's going on within (one of which for example features four arrows of time pointing in different directions), I'd definitely consider it good enough. (I could go over it again, but really don't want to waste even more time, when another review will be rejected again, if that's not the problem.)
That only leads to the same question again: What am I supposed to do now? I hope, you can help me! Best regards, Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a few hours ago, that you clarified the problem precisely in the "Edit" section of the draft. I only suspected it to maybe be about the long plot description before and some of the (maybe automatically generated or just too generally formulated) reasons in the declination box only left me more confused. I've now started shortening the plot by either moving explanations to the "Background (mathematics and physics)" section or shortening formulations, even if details I would have liked to keep have to be deleted. Best regards, Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I skimmed through the messages above,
@MicrobiologyMarcus I could be wrong but while the plot summary article is too long (600 words over the recommended 700 when you looked at it) I think the slightly more actionable advice would be on WP:Original research. (edit: the more I look at this the more confused I become... :/ it feels much more like the same problem now to me)
Wikipedia articles should be mostly based off reliable secondary sources. This section seems either unsourced, based entirely off synthesis, or on primary sources. The draft needs to be essentially a lot shorter than what it is right now. Star wars lightsabers, for example, would have these sources directly speculating on the production of lightsabers and thus does not require original research or synthesis, which is what differentiates these two cases. Justiyaya 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see similar issues with a lot of your other articles,
Any subject included in Wikipedia should have multiple secondary reliable sources providing significant coverage to it, I don't exactly see it in Dichronauts and a couple of your other articles right now, and most could do with trimming like I suggested above.
Next time, please ping the editor you are trying to reach for a faster response, and try to keep your messages a bit more concise so they seem a bit more readable.
This is probably really frustrating and most experienced editors had some experience like this, but probably not as severe. I got decently into hard scifi a few months ago with The Three-Body Problem (novel), the books you are writing about seems really interesting and I would probably check it out later if I have the time. Justiyaya 17:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Justiyaya Thank you very much for your answer! I Hope you can spare some minutes to help me. I do understand, that you take Dichronauts as a negative example of missing sources as it's published. I got told on the german Wikipedia, that at least two reviews are necessary, so I published it when I got three and when I still thought the rules here are the same. (But you can be assured, that I'll do my best to fix the issues with the article. I've already found more potential references.) I however don't understand, why you're also taking the draft for The Arrows of Time as a negative example. Isn't the whole point of an unpublished draft, that you can write a lot of unsourced text first, add references for it later and throw out original research that's missing one before publishing? (Which I did. Since your answers, I've added at least eight new references for the section you mentioned and intend to shorten the last quarter due to lack of it.)
You've also mentioned, that the draft is too long, but why? I've added everything essential about every important aspect as compact as possible, hence it should have the perfect length now. Is length here more important than full coverage? (And of course writing an article, learning it's not good enough as it's missing something, then spending more time adding that, only to learn it's still not good enough as it's now too long just leaves me with massive confusion.)
You've also mentioned, that there are similar problems with „a lot“ of my articles. This also left me confused as I've contributed no more than seven articles for the english Wikipedia, four of which without problems and most of those in two remaining ones fixed by now. Could you tell me more about what you meant? (I am definitely willing to fix problems, as you can for example see in The Clockwork Rocket with more than a dozen edits by me to add references after the remark above was added, but I first need to know what those problems are.) Thank you very much! (By the way, I also got into hard science-fiction with The Three Body-Problem.) Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
eye I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. Justiyaya 16:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not more unsure about Dichronauts, it seems to be borderline meeting Wikipedia:GNG based off [1] and [2] (not in article). I somehow missed the Kirkusreviews reference the first time I looked at it. I'd say it's on the line.
I think the too much synthesis and use of primary sources still stands though. Wikipedia articles is supposed to be mostly based off of reliable secondary sources, and this section is made up of almost entirely primary sources. Other articles seems to be based off synthesis, which is usually not appropriate.
You could use the WP:Teahouse to get a second opinion if you don't think I'm correct. Justiyaya 07:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Justiyaya Thank you! For the "Background (mathematics and physics)" of Dichronauts, I'll sure find secondary sources from math books (which I really don't thought are that important as the nature of mathematics is that conclusions like two vectors to be orthogonal when the scalar product is given to be self-evident. It also doesn't add to the notability of the novel.)
But I think I now finally get your synthesis objection as I indeed seem to connect statements from the sources on my own: If the novel mentions a scientific concept (for example the Planck relation as „Patricia's principle“) I write two sections about it; one about explaining the Planck relation and one about how Patricia's principle is used in the novel. Sources for the first are academic papers (among them many of the original ones) and the source for the second one is the novel itself.
But the novel includs an afterword, where the author himself explains the connection with actual physics to for example confirm that Patricia's principle is indeed the Planck relation. Hence I'm not the one coming up with that or doing the connection myself. In fact, I even left out more potential additions to the "Background (mathematics and physics)" section due not no explicit statement, that concept X from the novel is concept Y in real life.
Do you think, I should add a remark in front of the sections for all novels about the afterword doing this connection? Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant „didn't think“ of course. Well, one should re-read after editing. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Justiyaya I've now added a remark for the afterword and a reference to the entire website with an overview over every section (which previously I've only references alone) at the beginning of the section you mentioned as a remark about original research was added to the draft. (I've also added it to The Clockwork Rocket and The Eternal Flame.) I've also deleted the last quarter completely as it lacks references at the moment. In the current form, I consider the draft ready for resubmission. I will still wait a bit for that though and maybe also ask for reviews in the Teahouse later. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
eh I'm much less sure about the synthesis aspects of it now, could I ask on WT:NOVELS or something? I'm not sure on notability (for Dichronauts) also, its borderline for sure, a bit more secondary sources would do a lot. Justiyaya 12:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Justiyaya I've added more references in the meantime, so that some claims now have at least two: One scientific source and one from the author's website. This should make it easier to verify, that connections inbetween are not made up by me. I've also deleted another section as it concerns explanations exclusively given inside the novel and not the author's website, hence no reference for them is possible. I've also noticed, that another user, who I asked for help, published the article in the meantime. Of course, you can ask on WT:NOVELS, if you consider the necessity for that not having changed by now. Thanks again for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Synth and Novels. I don't think I've explained policy well enough and in case I'm wrong someone would correct me there. Justiyaya 16:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz! 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! microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 18:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics style policies[edit]

Hi, Samuel Adrian Antz. It's great that you're trying to improve Wikipedia, but your edits to Momentum map today seem to contradict these policies:

Please keep these policies in mind. Regards Mgnbar (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgnbar Thank you for informing me before I made further edits. I was not familiar with those policies before and it was a bit surprising to me that there is "no consensus about preferred formatting" here. Just so I understand it correctly: Are all edits solely for changing formulas considered inappropriate? Because I've noticed that they are very different in nature: Larger formulas not in its own environment (for example "√ρ = √Ψ*Ψ = |Ψ|" on Hamilton–Jacobi–Einstein equation), changing inbetween conventions within an article or even single sentence (for example "of when G is finite" on Equivariant cohomology), a non-cursive differential (for example on Cartan formula), or another flaw (for example partial derivatives not being written as a proper fraction on De Donder–Weyl theory). Should all of them not be changed with they pose the sole reason for the edit? How about when combined with an edit concerning the content? Thank you for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best advice I can give is to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics and to ask questions in the forums listed at Wikipedia:Questions and, in some cases, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. But I'll try to respond to your questions a bit here...
The lack of consensus arises for a few reasons. One is that Wikipedia's LaTeX integration is not perfect: not all of LaTeX is supported, the typeface often clashes with the surrounding non-LaTeX text, etc. Another is simply that different disciplines and sub-disciplines disagree on conventions, priorities, etc.
No, not all reformatting edits are inappropriate. In the "of when G is finite" example sentence that you cite, the two "G"s should match, and an edit that makes them so is valued, whether or not that edit also improves content.
To my knowledge, there is no rule that an article must consistently use HTML or LaTeX. It is conceivable to me that a well-written article could use both.
Sorry if further advice is unwanted, but: New Wikipedia editors often stumble into conflicts, by making edits that seem innocuous but instead produce controversy. For example, in my experience new editors often focus on the Wikipedia:Lede sections of articles, because ledes are important, without realizing that ledes are so important that they are battled over. If you want to make highly valuable, minimally controversial edits, while you learn the culture of Wikipedia, then I recommend adding factual content, with citation of reliable sources, in the later sections of articles.
Of course, I am not your boss, and you should edit in whatever (productive) way brings you pleasure. :) Mgnbar (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Didicosm[edit]

Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz,

Thank you for creating Didicosm.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To demonstrate notability we need independent reviews of the story.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mccapra}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mccapra (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra I wrote the page the first day I was active on the english Wikipedia and when I wasn't yet familiar with the fact, that the academic papers for the content are not enough to establish notability. I've now searched for reviews, but there only seem to be a short one ("gets a little technical but an interesting idea") on SFRevu, which is cited as a source on WIkipedia already (for example on Age of the Five) and a longer one on item202, which seems to not have been cited on WIkipedia already, hence I'm unsure about if it's allowed. I am thinking about adding the first review, but would that be enough to establish notability? (Another article about a short story I wrote (The Hundred Light-Year Diary) has only one review, but also won an award, which for example one not written by me (The Planck Dive) without a review at all shows can be enough to establish notability.) Thank you for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi what is missing is independent critical reviews of the story. At the moment the article tells us what the author thinks and what mathematical theories inform his work. For Wikipedia the most important thing is - what does everyone else think about it? Most articles on literary topics have a “reception” or “critical reception” section; see for example the sections in Iron Council or A Suitable Boy. That’s what your article needs to show notability. All the best Mccapra (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Didicosm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to establish notability. There are no reliable sources discussing the subject of the article itself; all of the citations seem to be to academic papers describing the discussing the phenomena that the short story covers.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69 Also see the answer above. I will try to fix the issues with the article and if I don't manage to do so within the next week, I am fine with the article being deleted. Thank you for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, Samuel, and I appreciate that you want to try and fix the issues I've brought up. If you'd like more then a week to address these issues, I can also turn the article into a draft, where you'll be able to work on it undisturbed for some time. We don't normally do this for articles older than 90 days, but we can make an exception if the page creator supports it. Let me know what you think! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz. Thank you for your work on Egan conjecture. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Thank you very much! I'll definitely be even more active in the mathematical section of the english Wikipedia in the near future. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for your work. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of your recent change to G-delta space[edit]

I have reversed your recent change to G-delta space. You can see the reason in the history. I was suggesting that the nLab link would be more appropriate for the G-delta set article, which is probably what you had in mind instead. But after reading the nLab page in question, it seems that all the results mentioned are already covered in the G-delta set article, and with more reliable sources as well (since the nlab is really a blog and not necessarily a fully reliable source). But please take a look and tell me if you see anything else there. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Arrows of Time has been accepted[edit]

The Arrows of Time, 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 20% 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!

asilvering (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]