User talk:Netshine2

This is Netshine2's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Elden (July 6)[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 Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that the appropriate notability criterion is satisfied. In particular, this draft does not appear to indicate that WP:NBIO is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the notability criteria at the Teahouse.

In particular, see and refer to WP:NBIO for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

This draft does not explain why Elden is notable/

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:John Elden 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Netshine2! 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) 01:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Elden (September 11)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Pichemist was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 20:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should consider the subject of notability of the Mount Elden, the City of Flagstaff, and the US Forest Service, all of which are topics covered by Wikipedia. Mount Elden is a prominent mountain visible from the entire City of Flagstaff. The John Elden homestead and Little John Elden grave site is maintained as a historical marker by the US Forest Service, and is clearly marked with signs and directions for passing hikers to easily find. Although John Elden did not seem accomplish anything notable, he is a historical figure with the City of Flagstaff and the US Forest Service, and the story of his son's death has become folklore. I would like to request reconsideration of the decision to reject based on these circumstances. Netshine2 (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's method[edit]

Recently, you added a new section to "Newton's Method for Systems of Equations" to the article Newton's method. I reverted it twice because it duplicates an existing section "Systems of equations". Indeed, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, if two sections have the same subject, the reason and the differences must be immediately clear to the reader. If you think that the existing section requires improvements (it certainly requires), you must edit it, not ignoring it for writing a new section.

By the way, your new section has multiple format errors such as wrong capitalization of "system", "equation", "method", etc. and too much text in latex formulas. D.Lazard (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello D. Lazard! Thank you for letting me know what happened to the disappearing paragraph. It was not clear to me if it was a glitch, upload error, deletion, etc. Now I know. I found the section you referenced regarding systems of equations, specifically the non-linear systems of equations. I concur that the new paragraph may be more suitably placed in that section, with a referring link in the Newton's method section. I will address the other issues you flagged and attempt to relocate the paragraph to the nonlinear systems of equations section. Netshine2 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello D. Lazard, I addressed the issues you raised, made a few more minor corrections, and then installed the heading in the systems of nonlinear equations page. Please take a look to see if you concur with the location and content. If so, I think it would be a good idea to place a reference in the Newton's Method page. Also, note that there is room for additional theory in the new heading. I am not a math guy, so if you or any of your colleagues wish to add more content, feel free.

Also, your Newton's method page raises some issues regarding polynomial root finding. I have solutions for those. If you want them, let me know and I will be happy to share them with you. --Netshine2 Netshine2 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello D. Lazard, I believe I have found the "Systems of equations" you were referring to. It is is sub-heading in the Newton's method article, as opposed to the systems of equations article, and yes, I agree it needs some work. Since the Newton's method article is heavily focused on single variables, i thought it may be better just to make a new article than to weave it into the existing article. You will find a draft entitles, Newton's method for systems of nonlinear equations. Once approved (if approved) I think we can more easily weave the article link into the existing Newton's method page. The draft article is from an engineering perspective from someone who has done dozens, if not hundreds of these over multiple decades. I think some mathematician input(s), perhaps by yourself, would further improve the draft prior to review. Netshine2 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Filter design, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phase angle. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links to draft articles[edit]

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Bessel filter. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arjayay. Thank you for letting me know. The way you updated the Bessel page looks good. Readers can still get the idea how to do it without the need for a link to the theory. We can revisit once we get the draft approved. Netshine2 (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]