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]

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]

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]

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 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:

The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot. You may wish to add this content to an existing article, such as The Arrows of Time. As anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are free to do so yourself.

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:The Arrows of Time 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

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]

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]

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]

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:

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#Typesetting_of_mathematical_formulae tells us not to do whole-sale switching from HTML to <math>...</math> without a clear improvement.
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#Roman_versus_italic tells us that the differential d is preferred as italic "d" rather than upright "d".

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 23% 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Thanks for your contributions to Dark Integers and Other Stories. 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. Clearfrienda ^💬 16:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz,

Thank you for creating Luminous (short story).

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

Please provide additional sources (reviews in independent reliable soruces) to show notability.

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|TimothyBlue}}. 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.

 // Timothy :: talk  16:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Best of Greg Egan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luminous. 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) 17:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Integers and Other Stories, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to The Moat. 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. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by LR.127 were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Most sources given don't seem independent. Please look at Wikipedia's reliability requirements (above) for more details.

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:The Moat 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LR.127 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transition Dreams 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/Transition Dreams until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel Adrian Antz. Thank you for your work on Bi-Yang–Mills equations. Another editor, Chaotic Enby, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

It could be good to explain what the equations are used for and how they generalize the Yang–Mills equations, and have more sources to demonstrate notability of the concept on its own. Otherwise, an alternative could be to discuss them at Yang–Mills equations if there isn't enough sourcing out there.

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

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a lot of articles on short stories cited only to reviews of the collection they're in, which don't even contain sigcov of the story. Please stop doing this - most of them aren't notable independent of the collection. You can include the plot summaries and the review comments in the parent article, so there's no content loss, just please do not make an independent article for each of them. They should all be upmerged to the collection they're in. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel Adrian Antz. Thank you for your work on Stable Yang–Mills connection. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day ahead.

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Moat, 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) 03:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel Adrian Antz. Thank you for your work on Spinc structure. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please revised the lead so it is understandable to a non specialist. Probably just needs a less complex first paragraph added.

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) 13:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954 No problem, I can rewrite the lead sections. If I remember correctly, there's a good geometric intuition by Edward Witten, but I have to search for it again. Thanks for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel Adrian Antz. Thank you for your work on Spinh structure. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Similar to Spin^c, please add to the lead for a non-expert

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) 13:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Moat".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prescribed Ricci curvature problem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel,

In a recent article you created, Hopf–Whitney theorem, references were missing. I have added one reference from the Literature section you added. Do add atleast 3-5 more/most credible and reliable references to this article and articles you may wish to create to keep your work unopposed. Happy editing! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder! I'm aware that the article still needs references and I also keep already created articles in mind that do, so I'll definitely revisit it. Allen Hatcher's Algebraic Topology for sure has something useful to quote, but I still need to search for it. Be assured that it'll be done! Happy editing to you as well! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. While reviewing new pages, I noticed that a page you created, The Rising Sea: Foundations of Algebraic Geometry, does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a standalone article. (It may in the future, once it gets some independent reviews; blurbs on the publisher's website don't count as reviews to meet WP:NBOOK.) As an alternative to deletion, I've redirected it to Ravi Vakil. If you disagree, feel free to revert my redirect and we can proceed to a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. (If you reply to me here, please ping me as I am not watching this page.) Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 No problem, I'm fine with that. In fact, only after creating the article did I realize, that I just wasn't able to link it in the literature section of any other article due to a conflict with the external link to a PDF of the book. I also only realized afterward, that the book is actually not used as a source as often as I thought. I plan to change that though; with its hundreds of pages, it will surely be able to improve countless articles with references, but I still have to gather inline citations. I also just saw that you have also already noticed my new article for Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra, for which the first problem also stands. (I've also described it on the talk pages of both articles.) But for that textbook, I already knew that it's used as a reference quite often since me and other users have been active covering a lot it also covers in the past months, see most of what is linked in its content section. So it is a bit more relevant regarding what currently is on Wikipedia already. For one of the promotional blurbs you removed - and you definitely have my support if that's not what is supposed to be in the review section - I found the original longer review. You've maybe not found it, because the original link is dead, but luckily, it was archived. Would it be okay to go through it and compile something for the review section that leaves out the part used for promotional purposes on the publisher's website? Thanks for your help too! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I thought there might be some real reviews out there for Higher Categories, so I didn't BLAR that one. The MAA source is a good one and there may be more. You appear eligible for access to the Wikipedia WP:LIBRARY, if you don't already have access -- so you can look for scholarly reviews there. (I knew there wouldn't be any reviews for The Rising Sea since it hasn't yet been released; once reviews appear and it passes WP:NBOOK, feel free to restore the page.) Thanks for understanding! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zhang Ran (writer) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Thanks a lot for the message! I have simply forgotten to copy the references from my german article created in September 2023, and it seems to have slipped through completely. I'm very sorry! The missing references are now added. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Samuel Adrian Antz! If the current article could be considered a translation of the German article, you will also need to include a translation notice, which can be done after creation. This is necessary for copyright purposes. To add the attribution notice, you'll do a blank edit with an edit summary such as the following: Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution. For more information on handling cross-wiki translations, see WP:HOWTRANS. Thanks! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade I didn't know that, thanks for telling me! I will do it for the creation of similar future articles right from the start. In fact, all ten articles I've created today about Chinese science fiction writers (all listed at the bottom of its 1989–present section) are translations of older german articles I've written near the end of 2023. I think I should add the message to the history of all of them. But how do I do such a blank edit? It won't let me click on "Publish Changes" without changes. And is it really supposed to be "content in this edit" rather than "content in this article"? Thanks for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Yes, you should add an attribution notice to all the articles you translated. You can do so using a dummy edit. What I usually do is go to edit the article, then add a space at the end of a paragraph, but H:DUMMY will explain how to do a true dummy edit. You're also right that the edit summary should be "content in this edit". You'd likely write something like, "This article was created by translating..." If you're doing a translation in a specific edit, you would write, "content in this edit." I hope that makes sense! Let me know if you have any further questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Thanks, the above message is now added to all ten articles! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Thanks! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Liu Yang (writer). 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CPDJay (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CPDJay Thanks for making me aware of the issues! I've expanded the article and added four new references, also including more works in the bibliography that have won awards. Since I think the issues are resolved now, I've just moved it back into main space. Let me know if there's still a problem. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz,

Thank you for creating Scale (novel).

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

Is there a second review of this book? Alexandra Pierce's review is the only source currently contributing toward WP:NBOOK.

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|LEvalyn}}. 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.

~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn Good day! I've now done a more careful search for more reviews and am pretty surprised that there currently are none, given Egan's popularity. But I'll keep watching for more reviews to appear. (Your template on Scale was removed by another user in the meantime by the way.) Also, I've just created Morphotrophic to complete Egan's bibliography. It was used as comparison in another review, but there's currently also only one proper one. Again, I'll keep this in mind as still needing to be fixed. Feel free to add a template if you like. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz,

Thank you for creating Gu Shi (writer).

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

I don't think that the sources you've included are sufficient to demonstrate notability, but I found some more sources online showing that she's notable. So, I've marked the page as reviewed and added a Sources exist tag. It would be helpful if you added more sources to the page to demonstrate notability.

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|Opm581}}. 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.

Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 09:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Opm581 Good day! I've improved Gu Shi, in particular adding four new references, and will also continue to expand other articles about Chinese authors I've already written. I leave it to you to remove the template if you're satisfied by the improvements. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I've removed the template. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 00:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel Adrian Antz. Thank you for your work on Liu Yang (writer). Another editor, Justiyaya, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I find it likely that the article will be kept at AfD due to good coverage in Chinese language sources. The article is in need of expansion at the moment and I'd invite the article creator to do so. I'll be happy to provide assistance with Chinese sources if needed. Happy editing.

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

Justiyaya 21:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya Good day! I might need a bit context for this. I was previously asked to expand the article (see a bit father above on this talk page here), so I did. Why is the article still – explicitly – "in need" of expansion? I'm also a bit confused about what you mean with the article being kept in "AfD due to good coverage"? First, isn't there usually a template put onto an article when it is nominated? I don't even find any AfD page mentioned in its "What links here" section. Is the article even that bad to be deleted to begin with? (Compared for example with Shuang Chimu or Sun Wanglu, who I'm currently researching to expand.) Second, why is the fact, that there is still more to add, the reason it's kept in AfD? Isn't that the case for every single article ever written here and the reason Wikipedia's logo will always be incomplete? Hope you can clear my confusion up and thanks for your offer of help! I know Mandarin, so using Chinese sources is certainly not a problem; I indeed could look up more of them. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel Adrian Antz, I meant it as in it the subject feels most likely notable to me and that it would be kept if it's taken there (so I marked it as reviewed). Sorry about that. I said that it needed expansion because there is certainly more to say about the author and a quick search in Chinese revealed a good amount of sources. Justiyaya 00:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya Okay, thanks! No problem, I'll expand the article as well. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya I just remembered: Have you checked that the sources you found are indeed about Liu Yang (writer) and not Liu Yang (taikonaut), the first Chinese woman in space? Both are written with the same characters, which confused me back when I wrote the german article. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was quite confusing! I added 作家 to the end of my search which filtered the results quite well. Justiyaya 00:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya So far, I unfortnutely didn't hae the time to fix the issues. I'll be in China for a few months and during this time I'll not be able to contribute to Wikipedia. I'll nonetheless continue writing offline and then upload everything when I'm back, which includes gathering more information about the authors (which should be easy in China). So it's not forgotten. I'll notify you, when all of it is fixed once I'm back. See you! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! There is no deadline and I'll be happy to lend a hand if/when you start. Justiyaya 17:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 You can delete the draft. I created it due to the relevance given by plenty of articles written by me and other users in the past year (see basically every article on my user page under "higher category theory") using it as a reference. Only after creating did I find out that the reviews I added are not allowed since all but one are used to promote the book and it is also not possible to link both the article for the book and the link for its PDF simultaneously (which for example is possible in the german Wikipedia, where you can also see dozens of articles linking to the one of the book). Since both relevance and necessity fell apart and I haven't found a way to fix it until today, I probably also won't be able to onward. I still copied the code in case that might change in the future.

It's also quite fitting that you wrote me, since I wanted to write you anyway: I'll be in China for a few months and during this time I'll not be able to contribute to Wikipedia. (In particular, the draft will be automatically deleted anyway if I remember correctly when not edited for six months.) I'll nonetheless continue writing offline and then upload everything when I'm back. That includes expanding articles you marked, for example Kaluza–Klein–Riemann curvature tensor, Joyal model structure or Cisinski model structure. I've already found more (potential) sources, but adding them will definitely take until next year. So it's not forgotten. I'll notify you, when all of it is fixed once I'm back. See you! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. Safe travels. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 Thanks and hello again! A little update: I was now back on Wikipedia for a week. But I've mainly concentrated on a different aspect in the meantime, which was first improving older work: I've added a few textbooks (Instantons and Four-Manifolds, Spin Geometry, The Geometry of Four-Manifolds, Topology, Geometry and Gauge Fields, 4-Manifolds and Kirby Calculus and General Relativity and the Einstein equations) and inline citations to various articles, including some created by me. These five authors here are not forgotten, but will have to wait until the next time, probably already in a month or two. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 Good evening! I'm now offline from Wikipedia until July again. Although I've expanded the first four authors, I still think there's a lot more to add, so I've not yet submitted the drafts. (But if you think one or more are fine already, feel free to move them.) Furthermore, I eventually came to realize that Sun Wanglu is far less notable than I thought. I haven't found a single (sufficiently notable) thing to add and haven't even edited his draft. In retrospect, it's not that surprising, given he's still quite young (born in 1992) and needs a strong enough reputation outside of China for an own article. I've abandoned his draft. See you again soon and happy contributing in the meantime! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to A Que. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Cheng Jingbo. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Ling Chen. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Luo Longxiang. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Sun Wanglu. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel Adrian Antz. Thank you for your work on Uhlenbeck's singularity theorem. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating and writing this article about mathematics! Have a blessed day for you and your family!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted diagonal is sometimes called edgewise subdivision, but which one is WP:COMMONNAME? Also, there seems to be a 2-Segal Space version of twisted diagonal. And also, I created a diagram, so please let me know if there are any mistakes that need to be corrected. See File:Twisted diagonal.svg.--SilverMatsu (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silvermatsu I've not heard edgewise subdivision before, but of course that doesn't mean it isn't more common. I can ask a few people specifially working in the field. The diagram looks great; thanks for that! I also had listed down to do that eventually. And also thanks for the two sources! I'll definitely give them a full read since they aren't that long. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bergner, Julia E.; Osorno, Angélica M.; Ozornova, Viktoriya; Rovelli, Martina; Scheimbauer, Claudia I. (2018). "The edgewise subdivision criterion for 2-Segal objects". Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. 148: 71–82. arXiv:1807.05069. doi:10.1090/proc/14679.
• Weibel, C. (December 2001). "Homotopy ends and Thomason model categories". Selecta Mathematica. 7 (4): 533–564. arXiv:math/0106052. doi:10.1007/s00029-001-8098-3.

Thanks for your contributions to Eight-dimensional Seiberg–Witten theory. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and see comment added. I have converted it 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954 Same as for Seven-dimensional Seiberg–Witten theory below. Issues will be fixed until the next opportunity. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Seven-dimensional Seiberg–Witten theory. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources and see comment. I have converted it 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954 Unfortnutely, I couldn't finish writing a full explanation of the corresponding equations, basically the core of the article, in time. But since drafts are safe for half a year without editing, I can do that until the next time I'm outside China again. But of course, that was the plan anyway. Thanks for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Eight-dimensional Seiberg–Witten theory. Thanks! Ldm1954 (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Seven-dimensional Seiberg–Witten theory. Thanks! Ldm1954 (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kaluza–Klein–Riemann curvature tensor 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/Kaluza–Klein–Riemann curvature tensor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sun Wanglu, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 22:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuel Adrian Antz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sun Wanglu".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]