Dzackgarza

Please feel free to leave comments!

A note

Thanks for creating Coxeter fan. It seems the first sentence is lifted directly from the given source, with no rewording or paraphrasing. Please do not do this in the future; I know paraphrasing math content can be tricky, but you can adjust structure, emphasis, etc. Ovinus (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the note. It seemed reasonable to me to state the technical definition verbatim and directly cite the source of the statement. I looked around for style guidelines discussing how to handle such citations but did not find any, do you have any links or references explaining the guidelines you're proposing here?

I ask because rewording definition could be an issue here: the article is a stub, I am not an expert, and the definition is somewhat technical, so there's a real chance that paraphrasing it could make it simply incorrect. Dzackgarza (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Dzackgarza, I must apologise – I didn't notice this potential problem when I declined the speedy deletion (below). However, it seems that the whole text is copied with minimal changes from that one source, and that the article, though open access, is not compatibly licenced for use in our project (the licence here specifically excludes commercial use). I've blanked the page and listed it here for investigation. I'll freely admit that I don't know what you should do about this, for the valid reasons you give here. I'm afraid that the answer may be to wait for someone who is an expert to write our page on this topic. Sorry about this, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I see, that is a real issue! I'll attempt a rewrite, although it feels dishonest to *just* paraphrase the source to avoid copyright issues. Having definitions of common mathematical objects in wiki articles is massively useful in day to day research though, so this may be a reasonable tradeoff. Dzackgarza (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Please follow this link to reach a special temporary rewrite page. To be clear, we shouldn't be looking to close-paraphrase the source, but rather to write new text that will convey the same ideas – and I don't myself see any dishonesty in that. If I may offer a suggestion, a good way of going about it is to work from several sources at once – you'll need those anyway to demonstrate that the thing is independently notable by our standards, for which a single source does not normally suffice. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Coxeter fan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Coxeter fan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Coxeter fan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Coxeter fan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001870810002586?via%3Dihub and Earwig scan doesn't work. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)