User talk:Thinkingarena

Ways to improve Developable roller
Hello, Thinkingarena,

Thank you for creating Developable roller.

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

"First of all, I'd say that this is a really interesting article. However, what I'm not seeing amongst the sources is a discussion of Developable rollers as a group - each of the families seem to receive individual coverage, but I'm not seeing where they are discussed together like this. Is there a more wide-ranging source that could be used to support the content discussing them in general? (I also note that the entire 'construction' and 'rolling motion' sections are unsourced.)"

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 prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

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

Girth Summit  (blether) 11:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello

Glad you found the article interesting and thanks for your comments. First of all, I would like to point out that my experience in Wikipedia editing is not extensive and it may be the source of the problems you have pointed out. Here is my response to your comments:

1. Chapters 1 and 4.1 of Reference 5 contain a general analysis of most types of developable rollers (there is no reference to Platonicons because the paper about them was published later).

2. All the claims mentioned in the article can be found in the seven sources I cited. Should I reiterate the same sources after each claim? I would appreciate your guidance on this matter. Thinkingarena (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , hi - thanks for responding. I'll take another look tomorrow, but briefly - yes please! In an ideal world, each assertion of fact would be referenced directly - even if that makes the referencing quite repetitive. There's no need to fill out the templates again and again, you can give it a template name and then just call it up each time you want to use it. If you aren't sure what I'm talking about, let me know and I'll explain more fully. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thank you for your reply and for offering help. Following your comments I read the article again and came to the conclusion that, in principle, you could add a source to almost any sentence in it. I suppose that this is, of course, not the intention. So I need to decide, to how many claims to add a source, and to how many not to. As someone who is not very experienced in Wikipedia editing, I have a question that may sound silly, but I would still like to ask it. Is there an informal norm regarding the number (minimum or average) of claims (more or less) you are expected to source, in an article similar to this one? ___  have you had a chance to read chapter 4.1 of reference 5? Thinkingarena (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , so, there isn't a maximum number of sources. If an editor wants to get an article through the featured article review process, they had better start by making sure that every single assertion of fact is referenced to a source. That's not to say that every individual clause of every sentence needs an individual citation though - if you get all of the information that's contained within one sentence, or even a couple of sentences, from a single source, you could put that at the end of those sentences and get away with it. A bare minimum would be one citation per paragraph though - less than that and people are likely to come along and start adding tags to it. I haven't had chance to look into it further yet I'm afraid, yesterday got busy but I'll try to take a look this afternoon. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * .Thanks a lot. This is very clear. I've started implementing. Thinkingarena (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's looking much better thank you - I've removed the tag and marked the page as reviewed. You might want to think about adding some more relevant categories - you'd be better placed than I am to do that, one way to start might be to look at articles about related subjects and see what categories they belong to. Cheers! Girth Summit  (blether)  13:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everything. Thinkingarena (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Polycon has been accepted
 Polycon, 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  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Polycon 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! Salimfadhley (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Thinkingarena. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note the line that says "avoid editing or creating articles about your... company." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion, as you did at Polycon. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)