User talk:Acakebread
| This is Acakebread's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Permuradic Number (February 27)
[edit]
- what are you talking about.. look at the Lehmer Code article.. it is related to that Acakebread (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the place to publish new research articles. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
|
Hello, Acakebread!
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! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
|
- I can't be bothered. This experience has put me off. The condescending tone of the replies and the attitude of the moderators is terrible. I am actively using the system detailed in the article and I thought it would be useful to share it. I'll take it elsewhere now Acakebread (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! Sorry for accidentally sounding condescending. The thing is, Wikipedia just isn't the place where you can publish original research articles – we're an encyclopedia, compiling research and information that has already been published elsewhere. A better place for you would be something like arXiv, which accepts preprints. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- it wasn't you, it was the original response. I appreciate your efforts to rectify the situation though. With respect to your reply though I was under the impression that Wikipedia was an electronic encyclopaedia and as such I wasn't aware that content needed to have been published to be valid content. When I was young I used to look through my Grandad's encyclopaedias and they contained information on everything from mythical beasts to details about volcanoes and my favourite section was about dinosaurs.. Most of that information is now completely obsolete of course but the point is that most of the content was concerning subjects that were neither published or necessarily immutable facts. It is surely the case that all information regarding deep space and quantum physics is nothing other than research. The one thing that is unchanging is mathematical certainties. And I can state with absolute confidence that the entry I was attempting to share was concerning a mathematical algorithm that is tested and funnily enough in use in published material. I am the author of several published game titles and several of the titles I have published contain code systems that make use of the predecessor to this algorithm. The article I was attempting to share with people could possibly have a significant impact on the cryptographic space but I am going to integrate it into the Stockfish chess engine shortly as an enhanced system for processing move ordering. Preliminary tests indicate a 3x to 5x space saving. I was hoping by publishing the work here that it could be dissected and possibly enhanced by the community and given that it is new to mathematics Wikipedia would be able to say you saw it here first. I acknowledge your point about research articles but it is already past that stage for me. The content I provided may appear to make it appear otherwise. Anyway I am pursuing other leads now and I will abandon my attempt to share it on this site given the circumstances. My attempt to publish has served one useful function at least in that there is now an online record of the first publication of this concept. Assuming that is that Wikipedia doesn't scrub content that is not active. Thank you and I will leave it here Acakebread (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
It definitely is! Being published doesn't mean something becomes an official certainty and no longer research, in fact, publication and peer-review are essential steps of the research process. Wikipedia is just a step that comes later: information is only added here after it has been reviewed and published in specialized outlets, and it is not an ideal place for a "first publication". I don't know if similar wiki sites exist for community-based review of new research, although that would genuinely be an interesting concept. Good luck with your research, hoping you manage to integrate it and publish it somewhere! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)It is surely the case that all information regarding deep space and quantum physics is nothing other than research.
- it wasn't you, it was the original response. I appreciate your efforts to rectify the situation though. With respect to your reply though I was under the impression that Wikipedia was an electronic encyclopaedia and as such I wasn't aware that content needed to have been published to be valid content. When I was young I used to look through my Grandad's encyclopaedias and they contained information on everything from mythical beasts to details about volcanoes and my favourite section was about dinosaurs.. Most of that information is now completely obsolete of course but the point is that most of the content was concerning subjects that were neither published or necessarily immutable facts. It is surely the case that all information regarding deep space and quantum physics is nothing other than research. The one thing that is unchanging is mathematical certainties. And I can state with absolute confidence that the entry I was attempting to share was concerning a mathematical algorithm that is tested and funnily enough in use in published material. I am the author of several published game titles and several of the titles I have published contain code systems that make use of the predecessor to this algorithm. The article I was attempting to share with people could possibly have a significant impact on the cryptographic space but I am going to integrate it into the Stockfish chess engine shortly as an enhanced system for processing move ordering. Preliminary tests indicate a 3x to 5x space saving. I was hoping by publishing the work here that it could be dissected and possibly enhanced by the community and given that it is new to mathematics Wikipedia would be able to say you saw it here first. I acknowledge your point about research articles but it is already past that stage for me. The content I provided may appear to make it appear otherwise. Anyway I am pursuing other leads now and I will abandon my attempt to share it on this site given the circumstances. My attempt to publish has served one useful function at least in that there is now an online record of the first publication of this concept. Assuming that is that Wikipedia doesn't scrub content that is not active. Thank you and I will leave it here Acakebread (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! Sorry for accidentally sounding condescending. The thing is, Wikipedia just isn't the place where you can publish original research articles – we're an encyclopedia, compiling research and information that has already been published elsewhere. A better place for you would be something like arXiv, which accepts preprints. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)