User talk:Virginia-American/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I propose this article for speedy deletion on the basis that there is already a page for composite numbers with broadly similar information. Based on the history of this article, it has also been used for many various and unrelated math topics. Judging by its nomenclature, which is also wholly inappropriate for the topic, it is a test page that should be removed. Chaparral2J (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a sandbox page within a user's namespace. This user is using the sandbox to develop an article before copy and pasting it to the mainspace. It's perfectly fine per WP:USER. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't. It's in the category for Elementary Arithmetic. Chaparral2J (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And Prime numbers. Chaparral2J (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If this was a user page, how would I have stumbled upon it? I found it in the category "Elementary Arithmetic" and thought that it was a real article, so I took a look. So it is trying to be the article for "composite number" when such an article already exists in English, which would make it an unncessary and poorly named duplicate, if not a test page; either makes it a candidate for deletion. If this isn't a test page, then what is? Chaparral2J (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He forgot to comment out the categories. I'll comment them out and there shouldn't be any more problems now. Test pages in the userspace are fine. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 16:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that I needed to comment out anything in the user sandbox area. I started rewriting the composite mumber article a month ago but haven't had time to complete it. (I basically want add some stuff about the statistics of composites - how do the functions d(n), ω(n), etc grow, how many B-smooth numbers are less than x, that sort of thing. Virginia-American (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Judging by its nomenclature, which is also wholly inappropriate for the topic, ..."

What do you find objectionable? Virginia-American (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The accessibility of your user pages should be limited to your userspace, and available to individuals who want to see them with the knowledge that it is a user page. When you began rewriting the composite article here, you also took with you the text to include it in the same categories as the original article. What I found objectionable was not the content of this page, but the name, and that it seemed to duplicate an existing one. I do not intend to insult your work, which is perfectly good. I was just confused, and I apologize for the fuss. Chaparral2J (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)