This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Is that the right place to answer your messages, rather than posting them on my own "talk" page? Sorry, I am an unexperienced Wiki user.
I edited the two articles, but I do not think that there is any serious COI.
For "Artin group", I agree with your changes, excepted for the deletion of the reference to Jacques Tits as the first investigator of these groups: I re-added him in a separate sentence. As for the question of whether a conjectured solution to the word problem is not worth mentioning, my opinion differs from yours (there is actually a solution working on all examples, but the proof that it is complete is missing in the general case), but, as this is clearly a COI matter, I skip it and approve you.
For "Dehornoy order", I dont agree with the deletion of the "Discovery" section: from a philosophical viewpoint, the question of whether the discovery of the braid order was a application of set theory is of interest, this is even the most interesting point. I wish to reintroduce this section. You protest against the fact that there is no reference, I added one. Please, reconsider your position. You are welcome to suggest another formulation that would avoid any possibility of COI (I agree to skip my name if you prefer). Thank you. Patrick Dehornoy 11:00, 5 August 2019 (GMT)
Further addition: I reconsidered "Dehornoy order" and rewrote the "Discovery" section so that my name no longer appears. I am fully satisfied. Please check this. Patrick Dehornoy 13:35, 5 August 2019 (GMT)
Hi Mark. Thank you for your message, I dont intend to post any further page that could give rise to a COI (I intend to prepare pages about the logician "Richard Laver", the technical notion of set theory "Laver cardinal", and — mainly — "Laver tables", which are very simple combinatorial objects whose properties are quite strange. This is a fascinating subject — and I have no relation with them.
About "Artin-Tits group", I have no further comment. I see you deleted the early references by Brieskorn (Bourbaki seminar) and Bourbaki: these were added to guarantee the well-founded notoriety of the groups, but, if you find them useless, this is fine with me. As it stands, the new page is richer, more complete, and more balanced than the previous draft. I am happy with this.
About "Dehornoy order", I compactified the "Discovery" section, and tries to make the style less editorial. You are welcome to suggest further improvements, but I would definitely prefer that something is mentioned, because this is a very specific and rare situation, and this is precisely this history that made the subject interesting and somehow famous in the math community. What do you think of the new version? Patrick Dehornoy 12:42, 6 August 2019 (GMT)
Hi Mark. I am fully satisfied with the edits you made on "Artin-Tits groups" and "Dehornoy order". Regarding the "History" section of the latter, I shyly reintroduced the words "a property that is a priori unconnected with large cardinals" at the end of the first sentence, because it seems to me that this point is really important (otherwise who would have cared?). If you dont like it, delete it, that's not a major issue.
I have two general questions: - about citations, you tend to place them after the dot or comma that closes the sentence, whereas I place them definetely before, in the sentence rather than outside; is there a uniform policy? - about first names, I have seen someone changed the initials I typed into full names; is there a uniform policy?
Finally, a personal question (if you permit me): are you a professional mathematician or an amateur? One sentence you typed surprises me, namely that conjectures are not eligible for mentioning: it seems that most mathematicians would consider that a good conjecture is more important than a weak theorem (think of the Riemann Hypothesis...), dont you agree?
Hi. Mark. Thank you very much for your answer. About the policy for footnotes and first names, it's clear and, although I am not spontaneously inclined toward such conventions, I'll respectt them, that's easy (and minor).
About the fact that you are indeed a mathematician (welcome to the crew!), I have still a naive question: I saw that most participants use pseudos, and so do you. What is the reason? I of course fully endorse what I am writing, and see no reason to hide my identity: for those few who know me, that's a sort of guarantee, and for those (many) who dont know me, this is a vacuous point. But I guess this is a too naive approach...
About this conjecture on the WP of Artin-Tits groups, let us forget it. If someone wishes to mention it, he/she is welcome, but I clearly understand that, as for me, there is a COI. Actually, the conjecture is quite well established, because there is experimental evidence (billions of random "difficult" tries, which proves nothing) and a proof for "wide" particular classes (FC-type and large type, which are somehow the two opposite cases). Also, the community is well aware of it. But arguing so would require to cite two more papers of mine, that's too much.
Best, Patrick Dehornoy 17:00, 08 August 2019 (GMT)
Hi Mark. Reconnecting after some break. About pseudos, I understand, and switched to "Laopi52". Following our example, I prepared a main page ("User:Laopi52") and a talk page("User talk:Laopi52"). I have one problem: the clicks to "main" and "talk" on the first lines are not functional (refering to neither "main" nor "talk"): if you understand my mistake, this should be easy to fix. Thank you.
About adding the conjecture about Artin-Tits groups, I'll consider it. Thank you for your kind offer.
Best, PD, alias Laopi52 19:15, 13 August 2019 (GMT)
Thanks. About the links, I did nothing, and I see it now works. Maybe redundant pages are automatically purged after some time. Anyway, all is in in order now. I still intend to work on "Orderable group" ASAP, but right now I have a health problem. Laopi52 15:00, 17 August 2019 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.17.237.58 (talk)
Kinmen is a functioning county of the ROC (Taiwan). I think that my wording ([1]) is more neutral than writing "Taiwan-controlled" (the original wording). The original wording doesn't even mention the "Republic of China". What do you think? Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Please look at this edit. One italicizes variables in this setting, but not digits and not parentheses or other punctuation and not things like det, cos, max, log, inf, exp, etc. This is codified in WP:MOSMATH. It is consistent with the way it's done in TeX and LaTeX. Also, note spacing appropriate to a binary operation symbol in g + 1 rather than g+1. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Siegel modular variety at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi MarkH21,
I see you posted a notice of edit war on the above talk page. Was that really necessary? I ask since:
a) The notice about an edit war states:
"you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree."
If you look at the San Tin page edit history, the only other person making edits in the last day or so is you. Hence "other editors" would be more optimally worded as "another editor". That there are 2 people making edits means any difference of opinion is only 50/50.
b) Are you familiar with the concept of assuming good faith? I invite you and anyone else to show me please where the edits I have attempted have not been intended constructively. I have assumed good faith on my part when you have undone numerous edits I have made. I also sought to engage you in constructive dialogue on the San Tin talk page. Posting the threat in the message about an edit war seems any of hasty, ill-considered and inappropriate and potentially any of aggressive and bullying.
I regret having to post this response. Under the circumstances I feel I have little choice. I hope that instead of posting threatening messages, any work we do together is polite, civil, constructive, respectful and in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.146.144 (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi MarkH21,
Your response added User talk:116.49.146.144
In response to your comment on my talk page, the issue is that you continued to move the transportation information into the first lead paragraph three separate times & add the other entities with the name "San Tin" into the first lead sentence three separate times while totally ignoring my reverts and my reasoning. I'll point out WP:BRD here:Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.
And now added this:
@116.49.146.144: Stop edit warring and stop re-adding that San Tin is each of an area, a highway, a public transport interchange and one of the 31 constituencies of Yuen Long District. The article is about the constituency. It is not about everything that shares the name "San Tin". On top of that but much less importantly, stop capitalizing cardinal directions and stop adding redundant wikilinks.
If I may response:
If that is the case then that in effect means that you deleted a wikipedia page when you merged the page on San Tin constituency with the page on the San Tin that was unrelated to the political constituency. That decision was taken by you and you alone.
If you also take a look at:
1) the number of edits I have made to that page 2) the number of such edits you reverted 3) my responses to the reverts you made
In retrospect do you still feel posting that threat when you did was the optimal response? Have you considered for example:
a) Not everyone is as experienced in wikipedia editing as you are? b) Not everyone gets everything right 1st time? c) There are more optimal ways of working with people than throwing threats around at the 1st opportunity?
I regret to have to respectfully say that your further reply only cements my worry that your approach is aggressive trying to railroad me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.146.144 (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
What this all about you gave me this info earlier I already know how used it before? Oon835 (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
So you are just a friendly reminder like the last time you gave me about sock puppet and now it's edit summaries. I have just one question can you contact which user who knows about Power Rangers and Lego because I'm having a hardtime searching someone for help? Oon835 (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
There is one problem edit the page when I used my smartphone because there is no edit summaries and what should I do? Oon835 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Please notify the other article creators. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC).
On 11 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siegel modular variety, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Siegel modular varieties naturally capture information about black hole entropy in string theory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siegel modular variety. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
valereee (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you please help me move all my 5 Lego pages into the draft pages just like you did before?
Oon835 (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me to move all my 5 pages into the draft pages. Oon835 (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mark, do you think Moshe Goldberg deserve an entry ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.161.221 (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Yo, long time no see. I'm currently enrolling in my first week as a degree student in college. I'm currently lacking in internet, but I have one little request. I know that user has created troubles again, but my only wish is to redirect the entire page to Ultraman Mebius and undo all of Oon's edits for today. That way, when I have enough internet supply, I could help refurbishing the character page into one that meets wikipedia standards. I hope that we can meet again sometime after that. Zero stylinx (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
You got to give me one more chance so I can do my best to improve my page. Oon835 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not my fault, I was just asked permission to Zero stylinx to copied all the characters out and put in my sandbox so I can do some testing and he allowed me. If I do it correctly and it won't go wrong. Like other users advice me not to give up hope and do my best. Oon835 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm doing plagiarism and can you please give me one more time to talk to you tomorrow my off day because I working now? Oon835 (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I make a mistake my messaging earlier and the real answer is I not doing any plagiarism I just want to modify those words only you got to believe me because my smartphone automatically put a wrong words which I didn't know it. You got to give me one more chance to restore my Powered page back and lucky I still got my last backup before it was deleted. If you want me to draft the pages fine and I will do it. But tomorrow I want to talk to you some more thing and it's kind of long story. Oon835 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Alright now I'm ready talk to you today. Here some problems:
Have you finish check all of the Zero stylinx's pages is their any unreliable sources or not? And I will be back next time. Oon835 (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I mean checks all his Ultramen Characters pages whether is their any unreliable sources or any sources books are extremely difficult to verify. I want know how you verify all the source books and can you highlight for me which source books are very difficult to verify in my page? I forgot to tell you one thing that I'm glad you already told Zero stylinx that he is in the wrong for giving "orders" to me and other editors or use such language that can cause a real bad insult or very hard to get along with him is a biggest problems from very beginning until now. Early, he mistakenly thought I'm doing plagiarism and Edit warring you know I never do such thing. So I'm thinking that modify those words or fix the gramatical error it might not work because he will mistakenly thought I'm doing plagiarism. I didn't mean that I break his promises it's because I jump into the wrong conclusion. I have a problems talking to the other editors such as Yosemiter don't want to continue talk to me anymore and KenYokai was in the wrong for reverted pages that after I removed all the red links and dead links so I quickly told him that he's in the wrong revert pages. Oon835 (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm just a new user so I'm here want to know more about Wikipedia. Plth41 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.
You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update=
or |pcupdate=
parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update=
or |ntupdate=
parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMY date format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use ((subst:mdytime)). This will generate the specific time the update was made.
If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am sorry to bother you. But under wikipedia laws isn't there a rule where people can not just delete articles that were here for some time? DJ DX article was set for deletion but has been here for almost 6 years. If there is anyway how you could help improve the article and remove the AFD? I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylstarz (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
So being on the front page of an etire state that owns many publications for the State of New Jersey isn't notable? If you go back and look at the deletion talk page one of your mods had the nerve to write he hasn't charted? Really!!!! Being on the charts is payola and costs about $40,000 so what are we really doing here on wikipedia now? It's a pay for writing about notable articles that have been published in publication? I am asking you to have some justification here about this situation because you seem very bright to understand what is really going on here. If you need a direct link to the front page of this newspaper I can send it to you. Vinylstarz (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, for San Uk Ling Holding Centre, you and your "friend" 80.111.44.144 tried to remove the description "cell of horror" for San Uk Ling Holding Centre several times in a very cooperative manner. In your latest attempt, you claimed that you can remove the description "cell of horror" because it is only mentioned in the Chinese media, not the English one. Then you removed the entire section and all relevant references.
If so, I would suggest you to remove the following facts for San Uk Ling as well because the current sources and terminology description are only from the Chinese sources:
I hope my suggestion to remove the above facts would help you to modify the article into the way you want. As a matter of interest, why are you so afraid of the description "cell of horror"?--Flag4567 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Quotation marks can also be used to highlight certain words and phrases of subjective comment, just saying.— User:pageseditor (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It has been brought to my attention that you have engaged in several edit wars, in which your revisions were not always accurate to the facts. It doesn't matter how long you've contribued to the community of Wikipedia, but page protection would be requested to avoid further 'undo' attempts. Please avoid using irrelevant excuses to pick on other editors; it doesn't reflect well on you despite your 'positive talk'. pageseditor (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that you changed my update regarding the Cayman Islands population on the following grounds:
"change pop ref to World Factbook to make ranking among British Overseas Territories consistent across articles"
With respect, the World Factbook is incorrect, both about the populations of Cayman and Bermuda which have been moving in opposite directions for years according to their own statisticians and the UK's. While I have not looked this up, I do not think that it is Wikipedia policy to use a source with incorrect information so that consistency of using that source is maintained across a group of related articles. A source with incorrect information should not be used across any of them.
Here is the reality: the UK, the sovereign administering power, has acknowledged that Cayman is now the most populous territory. That is the accurate statement. Not that the World Factbook estimates something completely different. If you would like me to provide you with proof that the Minister for the Overseas Territories has said this, I will do so.
Accordingly, I intend to make edits to both the Cayman Islands and Bermuda articles. I have no intention of getting into an edit war so I am contacting you here to explain. If this has to be fully debated with reference to policies and various sources I will do it, but it should be obvious that incorrect statements based on incorrect sources should not be made, even if the source is handy for the purpose. Legaleagle345 (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
my update? Do you mean this IP edit? Also I thought that this section was about bots when I first read the section title hah! — MarkH21 (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take a look! A bit busy at the moment, but I'll get back to you soon. Also no worries! I didn't mean to accuse you of sockpuppetry or the like. I just wanted to make sure I knew which edit you were referring to. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It gives an estimate of Cayman's population of 59,613 as at July 2018. That is simply not possible. I live here and experience the congestion every day.How can you possibly tell the difference between a population of 59,613 and a population of 65,813 across three islands and several towns from your daily commute? :) I also do not see how you can tell that the CIA Factbook estimate did not use local data. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)