Virtumanity

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spacetime Manifold (April 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wiae 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Virtumanity/sandbox/Spacetime Manifold and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wiae /tlk 14:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Virtumanity, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! /wiae /tlk 14:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Original research

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Spacetime topology, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to your answer that there is no George Receli draft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:George_Receli

The draft's link is above. I have submitted the draft for approval, so it may be with the Articles of Creation desk.

Thanks, WikiWhip (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spacetime Topology has been accepted

Spacetime Topology, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Spacetime Topology

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Spacetime Topology. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Spacetime topology. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Spacetime topology – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. - DVdm (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I approved the article, but I did not check whether another article existed that differed only in capitalization. Perhaps I should have made that check. Creating multiple copies of articles with almost the same text by copy-paste is sometimes done by enthusiastic inexperienced editors who do not understand redirect. This page should be deleted except for a redirect to the existing page. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Article userfied

I have moved your article to User:Virtumanity/Spacetime Topology as an alternative to deleting it per WP:CSD#A10. Favonian (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Virtumanity/sandbox/Spacetime Manifold has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Virtumanity/sandbox/Spacetime Manifold. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert and Dvdm,
Based on your comments, I read moe of research papers and finally find some good papers presenting the same ideas to avoid the problematical terms which, I agree, can be miss leading. After removed unreliable sources and original research, the article is now cleaned up. Please provide your further advice. Thank you!
FYI, I frequently read articles on Wikipedia. It motivates me to contribute my knowledge like many of you do. By working on this first article for Wikipedia, I have learned how to write it align with the policy. Looking forward to working with you. Virtumanity (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have copied the comments from elsewhere, and commented on the sandbox talk page. Please note that Wikipedia is a not a place where we "contribute [our] knowledge like many of [us] do". In fact, none of us do, because it is not allowed—see WP:NOT#OR and wp:no original research (which was already explained here above in section #Original research). - DVdm (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

as I learned in this process, all wiki pages are written by individuals gathering the related information from reliable sources. To me, the way to write an article is an art or "to contribute knowledge". This is true in this article now. All of the facts are clearly marked the year and the scientist name. Anyway, I have put the related things together referanced with the reliable sources. Please look at the examples of Manifold, Topological space, ...., Thank you, Virtumanity (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't anywhere near true in the article now: see why at wp:verifiability and how at wp:citing sources. Every single statement must be sourced: book, article, author, isbn, publisher, date, and very importantly, page number. And also, see wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon statements "I had originally intended to contribute a few articles on subjects of which I have knowledge. However, it seems that much of my time is being spent in responding to disputes and problematical editors. We have problematical editors on Wikipedia because editors are human and humans are problematical." AND they are wasting their time on the earth. Virtumanity (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)