User talk:MarkH21

Main

Talk

Toolbox

Contributions

Notification of discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33--regentspark (comment) 21:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Since you're editing in the area, a heads up that articles related to the Kashmir conflict are under tighter restrictions including, but not limited to, a 1RR restriction. --regentspark (comment) 21:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

BOT populations

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)

Right, I made those changes because the Cayman Islands article said that it is "the most populated British overseas territory" while the Bermuda article (where the figure was unsourced!) read that it is "the joint-highest of the British overseas territories along with the Cayman Islands." I understand that perhaps the CIA World Factbook may not be the best choice despite being used in numerous articles here and certainly an official UK source would be better. If you can find one then that would certainly be preferable! Note that the Minister for the Overseas Territories saying this probably does not count as such (as opposed to a published census or estimate).

On another note, what do you mean by 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)

Understood. Yes I was referring to that IP edit. The UK has no better sources to my knowledge than the output of the territories' relevant statistics offices, which are of course, run professionally and produce their outputs according to proper methods. If the UK keeps what it thinks is better maths, then the statements of its relevant minister and top civil servant in this area carry even more weight. In my 15 years experience reading articles about the OTs as someone from Cayman, the CIA World Factbook has only ever been able to estimate anything roughly. It may say we have so many miles of road; six months later, we may have built another 20 miles of which no notice has been taken by the World Factbook. I doubt they have anyone measuring. Please see page 22 of this document: [[1]] wherein the following is said on 18 December 2018 to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:

"Lord Ahmad: First, you are right on numbers. I think Bermuda is probably the largest overseas—

Ben Merrick: Cayman Islands has taken over.

Lord Ahmad: Yes, Cayman Islands has just taken over."

[2]Ben Merrick is Director of the UK Overseas Territories Directorate in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. How can Cayman have just taken over according to our own statisticians and confirmed by the UK and suddenly, Bermuda has 6,000 people on us because the CIA World Factbook says so, despite years of economic mismanagement and retrenchment in Bermuda and years of growth in Cayman? I need to see proof that Bermuda at least has done some numbers of its own before those of our Economics and Statistics Office and the statements of the UK are challenged. The best relevant document I have been able to find is this document prepared after the Bermuda 2016 Census, which is a set of projections yet to be contradicted as far as I can see by anything to the contrary: [[3]] which states that:

"Bermuda’s mid‐year population is projected to decrease from 63,791 to 63,680.

• The annual growth rate is expected to change from 0.2% to ‐0.2%.

• The crude birth rate is projected to fall from 9.3 to 7.3.

• The crude death rate is expected to increase from 7.6 to 9.4"

It doesn't seem possible that in those conditions, Bermuda has in the space of 3 years, crossed 70,000 people, a population it has never had in its history. Again, the CIA World Factbook is not appropriate for this; BOT populations change with economic conditions in each territory and a few hundred or thousand people make the difference between first and second place; the CIA isn't doing the counting, the territories' authorities and the UK are.

Could you possibly do some more looking into this of your own so that we can agree or agree to disagree, if necessary? Legaleagle345 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, no sock puppetry was intended. I just hadn't logged in when I made those changes forgetting after many years away from Wikipedia that if you have an account you are meant to use it for everything. Besides, the changes aren't "problematic" - I just inserted the most up to date facts. Legaleagle345 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 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)

Off wiki canvassing.

Thank you for the advice. I did post on Facebook a request for support, but emphasized that what was needed was reliable sources, which I may not have read, that have reviewed my work. I will avoid such posts in the future.

No problem. It did seem to be carefully worded and done professionally (as much as an off-wiki post could be), and doesn’t really fall into the same category of egregiousness that these matters usually devolve to :) — MarkH21 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for contributing to Wikipedia PATH SLOPU 09:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop removing my edits on the dreadlocks page. I am writing facts and you and another person keeps deleting it. Locs come from MY people and I have the right to educate others about where the name “dreadlock” originates from PantherBlackone (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@PantherBlackone: 1) You need to provide references for your addition to the Dreadlocks page. 2) You need to refrain from edit warring when others (rightfully) remove your unreferenced additions. If you disagree with another editor's revert of your additions then start a discussion on the talk page instead of continuing to re-add the material. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Height function

On 22 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Height function, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that height functions allow mathematicians to count and distinguish objects such as rational points of algebraic varieties? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Height function. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Height function), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Elliptic curve

Would you be able to take a look at my creation q:Elliptic curve and answer a query of mine (I don't understand the math involved)? Our article Faltings's theorem seems to imply that from the POV of algebraic geometry elliptic curves with genus 1 are the hardest i.e. harder than genus g=0 or >1 whereas Michael Harris says they are the "simplest class of polynomial equations for which there is no simple way to decide whether the number of solutions is finite or infinite". Solomon7968 00:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Solomon7968: The g > 1 curves are really more difficult to understand than elliptic curves. This is evident in the fact that the genus 1 case (elliptic curves) of Faltings's theorem is actually the Mordell–Weil theorem which was proved in the 1920s whereas a higher genus analogue was not determined until the 1980s using significantly more sophisticated techniques. There is a lot about the structure of elliptic curves that is well-understood by mathematicians (and there is a lot that isn't!), but the structure of higher genuses is more of a mystery. We cannot say much in general about how many rational points a higher genus curve may have whereas, for instance, the BSD conjecture and torsion theorem tell a lot about what the group of rational points of an elliptic curve should look like.

The quote by Michael Harris is not really about comparing elliptic curves to higher genus curves, since Faltings's theorem tells us that the number of solutions is finite when g > 1. It refers to the rational points of algebraic varieties of dimension greater than 1 (e.g. dimension 2 = algebraic surfaces) about which we know very little! So the quote does not contradict Faltings's theorem :) — MarkH21 (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Your explanation is very nice, thank you. A further question (no need to ping further): In polynomials in one variable we get struck at degree five i.e. Galois theory, in two variables at degree three i.e. elliptic curves the topic of this post, in three variables where do we get struck? You say above that "algebraic surfaces about which we know very little" does this refers to the scenario when there are three or more variables? BSD, Hodge and Riemann conjectures are I assume associated with this as is Langlands program and Grothendieck's motives. Solomon7968 04:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In two variables, we don't really get stuck at elliptic curves. Just as in Faltings's theorem, they're really the starting point for studying algebraic curves in general. Once we move to surfaces, there is really little that we know in the detail that we do for curves. For example, The Bombieri–Lang conjecture is an analogue of Faltings's theorem for surfaces that is a much less refined statement about the structure of the set of rational points on a surface and is unproved! Furthermore, there is no degree that we really get "stuck" at for either curves or surfaces.

What we really have is that elliptic curves are the starting point for studying curves, which in turn are the starting point for studying algebraic varieties in general. Surfaces are just the next step after curves - in fact, much of what we know about surfaces involves reducing problems to ones about curves such as the second sentence in this MathOverflow post. It's not like geometric topology where higher dimensions are often easier to understand than lower dimensions (e.g. the generalized Poincaré conjecture) - the low genus / low dimension objects are the only ones that we are able to understand anything! Note that this applies not just for the study of rational points on algebraic varieties, but also their general theory even over the complex numbers.

Finally, the major problems and areas of research are indeed closely related. BSD pertains directly to the structure of rational points of elliptic curves, the Hodge conjecture doesn't pertain so much to rational points but does relate the algebraic structure of an algebraic variety to its subvarieties (similar to how the Bombieri–Lang conjecture can allow one to relate the rational points on a surface of general type to those on curves on the surface), and the Riemann hypothesis has countless connections to this subject (e.g. the Weil conjectures which give a very general analogue for algebraic varieties). The Langlands program and motives are less directly related but have far-reaching indirect connections. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User Oon

Thanks for your help, mate. I have been in this trouble for almost a month and I'm in charge of the Ultraman section of Wikipedia. Its crystal clear that the user is a hypocrite, trying to hide behind multiple anon accounts. Zero stylinx (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I think that the user is well-intentioned and wants to help expand those articles, but the user's plagiarism and edit warring is disruptive. Hopefully they will begin discussion instead of continuing this behavior.

Regarding your wording I'm in charge of the Ultraman section of Wikipedia: this is against the policy against any user owning part of Wikipedia. I understand that you have contributed greatly to this area of Wikipedia, but please be careful with your wording and avoid any claims of ownership. Cheers. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha, and apologies. What I really meant is that I'm usually worked on the Ultra Series page to improve them to suit the Wikipedia's standard procedure. I'll be careful with what I'm saying next time. However believe me, he deny this plagiarism claim but his edit says otherwise is what makes me suspicious.Zero stylinx (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

I see that you welcomed/warned 2604:2D80:4406:8AF1:10B8:CFD1:9F7F:DBC9 recently after the user left a confusing message on my talk page (honestly a little hurt by the tone that was used by the user). Anyways I wanted to thank you for that. I guess the IP User is not having a good day? Happy editing! OkayKenji (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: No worries, there are a lot of trolls and idiots out there. Sometimes they spew nonsense because their vandalism or other bad edits were removed. Sometimes they do it for no clear reason.

It’s best to ignore them. Please carry on with the great contributions you make here – particularly to the articles on space exploration/launches! Cheers! — MarkH21 (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. :) OkayKenji (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Oon did it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultraman_Nexus&diff=894972136&oldid=893265338

He lied. He did it again as his recent edit. Zero stylinx (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't lied. I just want want to rearrange it that all.

That Zerostylinx mistakenly thought I lied. It only rearrange and tidy up. Or is it Zerostylinx thought that I didn't rearrange properly well. Oon835 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Explain which part in "rearrange"? As seen for your last revision in Ultraman Max, if listing characters in a main fiction page, all characters should be given a group header, not one of them given a single header. Additionally, your bulletting is the worst: the "<br>" code should not be put in character and cast listing because its only expanding the page with lots of empty space, including not to bold a character's name. This is a Japanese drama article, not a Power Ranger. Second, you were reverting the synopsis section of Ultraman Nexus to a longer version, which was flagged for being too elaborate.Zero stylinx (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oon385: Your most recent edit at Ultraman Nexus clearly readds material that you tried to add here and here again. This is a violation of the policy against edit warring that I strongly suggest you read. Stop continuing to add material that others have removed. This is why been temporarily blocked. Please discuss at the article talk page (such as this one) if you would like to add something that someone else has objected to and removed. We will appreciate your future cooperation. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

About Sockpuppet

I'm not a sockpuppet that I didn't do it and it's was my 2 friends who did it. They come here to borrow my computer and they edit the wikipedia pages without joint as a new users. Lucky I stop them from doing it. So I apologise to you that my 2 friends who cause it so much trouble. Oon835 (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you forgotten that I'm here to clear my name that I'm not doing like a sockpuppet it's was my 2 friends who did that. They borrow my computer and they edit the wikipedia pages without joint as a new users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oon835 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems of used the Talk Pages

I was only afraid that users might never reply me some answers because they might had forgot to reply or the other users look unfriendly to me. You let me explain that last wednesday I went to edit the Nexus and Max pages because that Zero stylinx must had mistakenly deleted the wrong source pages that an important one so that why I'm here to restore it back. That's why I'm afraid to talk to Zero stylinx because it's doesn't look friendly to me before I starts to edit the pages. He is wrong to accuse me a liar you know I never lied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oon835 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oon835: There are other editors here, besides Zero stylinx (talk · contribs), so you should use the article talk pages regardless of whom you think is unfriendly. If your edits are contested, then begin a discussion instead of continuing to re-add your content. Can you confirm that you have read the guidelines on edit warring? This was the primary reason why you were blocked and why your behavior has been seen as disruptive.

Side note: please sign your messages on talk pages such as the comments you place here by placing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Thanks. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Can I leave him to your observation? You look like you're good in handling this. Zero stylinx (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I now accept your guidelines.Oon835 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You still forgot about the Sockpuppet investigation that I already told you that I want to clear my name.Oon835 (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you've decided to read the guidelines. As for your sockpuppet investigation, it is now closed because we cannot formally link user accounts to IP addresses. However, you are responsible for your own account and your own computer. An excuse of "I didn't do it... my 2 friends did it" will not work when it is obvious that the content being added is what you previously added. Please try to prevent that from happening again. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I already stop them from doing it again.Oon835 (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I report to you if there is an unfriendly users that against me? Oon835 (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

How many article pages had been deleted by Wikipedia admins and what's the reason? Oon835 (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You should not really report them to me because I am not an administrator. Also, you should first try to talk to the user before reporting them. The following options are available if you have already tried talking to the other editor.

1. If you would like a third person to look over a dispute, you can contact me or another experienced editor.
2. If it is a dispute about content or something that is not absolutely urgent, then you can ask for a third opinion from a neutral editor or open a formal request for comment.
3. If you find users who are acting in violation of the conduct policies or behavioral guidelines, then you should direct your complaints to an administrator.
4. As a last resort, the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents is used for urgent incidents.

I hope that's clear. Please do try talking to the other editor before taking any of these steps. You can find more advice at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

As for deleted articles, this happens when articles do not meet the standards for notability, have copyright violations, or otherwise violate Wikipedia policies. Article deletion is typically done through one of the following three processes: speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and articles for deletion. The first two processes are for articles that clearly do not belong on Wikipedia while the third allows editors to discuss whether articles satisfy the Wikipedia policies. I don't know how many are deleted every day but the number is probably quite large because Wikipedia is so large. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't know that I thought you are an administrator. I want ask you after the pages was deleted did the users recreate a new one to make look a bit differents. I know its sounds really bad to heard so many pages had been deleted and that cause so many problems to the users.Oon835 (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes that happens. Sometimes users recreate an article properly and it stays on Wikipedia and sometimes they violate the same rules that got the article deleted in the first place. Most of the time, it is the bad articles that cause problems to other users rather than administrators acting poorly. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You see I really like to read one my favourite pages such as Power Rangers Pages but I found some of the pages is gone and it's makes me really unhappy. Also Zero stylinx already told to me that some of the Super Sentai Pages also deleted. Oon835 (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you that I'm not happy with KenYokai because the last time after I edited the Ultraman 80 page by rearrange it with putting the cast list and the song list. But suddenly he reverted it back without giving me some reason in my talk page. Of cause you I not going for a war and I'm come here for peace. Oon835 (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oon835: His revert of your edit here mentions the reason as your edits being "unnecessary". If you have an issue with it, please talk to KenYokai (talk · contribs) at the user's talk page or the article talk page rather than here. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, from now on you already know I only want peace and not a war. Now I have good thing to tell you that I'm very busy to help the other users to list out sets of the Lego models for the Lego pages that's no problems at all. If I need your help and you don't mind if I talk to you in your talk page anytime I want.Oon835 (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• This was left on my own talk page, hence why I was reverting these edits fyi:

"Yo, I need an urgent help. The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oon835 has been adding poor copy paste translations from Japanese Wikipedia to Ultraman articles. I have been reverting his edits twice and he was also reverting an admin's edit. Can you observe his contribution list for a moment? I warned him twice back then (first I used excessive force, then I realized what I did was bad, so the second time I asked him nicely). If he did it again, I may as well resort to reporting his actions.

I mean look at his edit history! He sandwiched the cast section in between synopsis (above) and character list (below). He even disrupt the cast listing mode.

Zero stylinx (talk) 8:59 am, 9 April 2019, Tuesday (29 days ago) (UTC−5)" KenYokai (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Enough of it KenYokai I not going to do it anymore.Oon835 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Infobox mathematical statement

Thank you for quality articles around math such as Karen Uhlenbeck, Patrick X. Gallagher and Height function, based on scientific expertise, for patience when implementing {{Infobox mathematical statement}}, for improving articles, with diligent edit summaries, for welcoming new users, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Wow, thank you - this is unexpected and gratefully received! Thank you as well for your contributions throughout the project, for your guidance, and for your work in brightening the editing community here :) — MarkH21 (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This had to be expected since you tried that implementation, but had to wait until the RfC was closed. I hope you aware that the award comes from the cabal of the outcasts, and was given by the "most disruptive infobox warrior" ;) - I can live with the attribute because I believe that the set of infobox warriors is empty, - what does it mean then to be extreme, mathematically? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Violet Oon

Hello! Your submission of Violet Oon 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!

By the way, just curious: are you Singaporean? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for taking the time to review the nomination! I'll think of a better hook :)

Nope! I previously spent some time in Singapore but I'm not Singaporean. I seem to have dealt with an unusual number of edit-warring Singaporean editors lately though... — MarkH21 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Goro Shimura

On 5 May 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Goro Shimura, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 23:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Manifold vs variety

I have added to q:Algebraic geometry a new quote by Atiyah which you may like to peruse. As I understand, the difference between a manifold and a variety boils down to Resolution of singularities; which in characteristic p is unsolved; whereas in characteristic 0 proved by Hironaka. Jaffe and Witten says in the official problem description of the yang-mills problem that "classical non-abelian gauge theory has played a very important role in mathematics in the last twenty years, especially in the study of three and four dimensional manifolds". However you told me above that "It's not like geometric topology where higher dimensions are often easier to understand than lower dimensions". As I see it Jaffe and Witten are referring to the work of Simon Donaldson or are they referring to someone else? Does that mean if we can solve Resolution of singularities in characteristic p, classification of varieties would be as easy as a manifold? Solomon7968 12:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you Mark but I am still waiting for you reply. I see from your user page that you speak and/or interested in things Chinese and today's DYK section has an entry on two Chinese mathematicians, Xiuxiong Chen and Song Sun (created by Dennui and Zanhe), both co-authors of Simon Donaldson and contributors to something similar of this talk page post. Quite a co-incidence I suppose. Solomon7968 06:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry! I meant to respond to this when I saw it but it must have slipped my mind. I’ll get back to you soon! — MarkH21 (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI I just started the WQ article on Simon Donaldson and Henri Cartan. Now q:Algebraic geometry contains no redlinks i.e. only blue links. Sorry to keep badgering you but I hope that you look to the WQ article and also answer my question. Solomon7968 12:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are referring to the work by Donaldson, but may also be including others in Yang-Mills gauge theory (Shing-Tung Yau, Karen Uhlenbeck, Jonathan Sacks, etc). Indeed, my point about high dimensions sometimes being easier to understand is still true here. See Generalized Poincaré conjecture (the work by Stephen Smale preceding the lower dimensional cases) and 4-manifold#Special_phenomena_in_4-dimensions for instance. Regarding resolution of singularities: not really. There is a lot more structure that a variety can have that would make classification a different problem. For one, this would fall into the question of birational classification (e.g. the minimal model program), which is just classification up to one property (birational equivalence). One can look at other structural questions to classify varieties (e.g. from a rational points perspective) that are totally unknown. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Violet Oon

On 4 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Violet Oon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although her mother never cooked, Violet Oon learned to cook Peranakan food at the age of sixteen before eventually being appointed the food ambassador of Singapore? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Violet Oon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Violet Oon), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

GH

FHIK OHJO OKFG9OK KOKHOFHL PFJNB,KHJOF KONJOLVP HJHGK .H HGJHKCGKBFK MKCJXJK MFJC — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.k.m2003 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean — MarkH21 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Dehornoy for "Artin group" and "Dehornoy order"

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)

I agree with most of what you said here / added to the articles; I'm responding on your talk page! — MarkH21 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

No problem! You may edit articles that you may even have a COI with, but the Wikipedia policy discourages one from doing so directly. Proposing edits on an article talk page or on the talk pages of other users will usually have the desired effect without becoming entangled in complicated procedures. The guide at WP:PSCOI provides a clear overview of what to do.
Regarding Artin–Tits group, I am not saying that the reference is useless but that it does not belong in the lead (which should summarize content already in the article / introduce the topic). The "References" or "Further reading" sections would be appropriate though. Regarding Dehornoy order, the new "Discovery section" looks well-suited! I will make a few minor edits but feel free to discuss any of my changes. — MarkH21 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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?

Ah yes that sounds good, I could not think of a good way to word that!

About citations, the Manual of Style dictates that the footnote should come immediately after any punctuation here, with no space before. As for first names, the Manual of Style dictates that the first instance of a name should be the full name with subsequent references by their surname (see MOS:SURNAME). The exception is only if "the name is commonly written that way" (see MOS:CITEPUNCT), e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien.

Indeed I am a professional mathematician. I absolutely agree that conjectures are incredibly important, but my understanding was that it was a proposed solution of some sort to a larger conjecture (apologies if this is incorrect, I study number theory and geometry and am not particularly familiar with this area). So in that sense, conjectural solutions to problems are generally too numerous and unimportant (e.g. the Riemann Hypothesis article would be extraordinarily long if we included proposed solutions) unless can be demonstrated to have attracted significant attention.

If that is the case for this and you can provide independent sources, then feel free to re-introduce that sentence that I deleted. Perhaps more detail would make it clear that it is not a vague idea of a proposed solution? — MarkH21 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

Purely because the internet is full of unreasonable people who may harass or otherwise cause unfavorable actions against one with whom they may disagree. It's not that editors do not endorse their own actions, but wish to protect against those of others.

If you write it out on the talk page, I'll be happy to add a well-referenced discussion about this conjecture to the article on your behalf! — MarkH21 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

Your new page looks nice! The links seem to work right now, I'm guessing that you figured out how to fix it before I even got to this :) — MarkH21 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

I am very sorry to hear that. I wish you a speedy recovery and I look forward to seeing the new article :) — MarkH21 (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Orderable group

I found an inaccurate point. When looking for "orderable group", I could see that this is forwarded to "Partially ordered group". But that's not correct at all. An orderable group is a group equipped with a TOTAL ordering which is invariant on at least one side. The more precise terms "left-orderable group" and "right-orderable group" are also used, but the intersection with "partially ordered group" is tiny, and these are completely disjoint subjects and authors. How to cope with that problem? Patrick Dehornoy 17:45, 08 August 2019 (GMT)

This is probably because an article for orderable group does not exist, so the next best thing is to redirect it to partially ordered group rather than leave it empty. You can create a new article for orderable groups if you'd like! — MarkH21 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Quanzhou page

Kinmen is a functioning county of the ROC (Taiwan). I think that my wording ([4]) 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)

That's my personal opinion. If you're really against the way I wrote it, I guess I wouldn't really oppose you. But I think my way is slightly more neutral, so I wrote it that way. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue is there are two separate legal claims by the ROC and PRC over the county, with the ROC maintaining effective control and administration. Putting a comma after Kinmen in "Kinmen County, ROC" implies that it is a part of ROC, rather than a claimed part of both and therefore gives priority to the ROC claim. I've tried something even more neutral, mentioning the ROC claim and administration without the problematic format. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Too many italics, not quite enough spacing

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)

Ah, thanks! I figured I would use HTML math formatting rather than LaTeX for this article since it wouldn't be too formula-heavy, but I often get confused about proper non-LaTeX math formatting. Much appreciated! — MarkH21 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Need to talk

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)

@Oon835: Sorry if I already told you about this before, but it is a friendly reminder that you should always write edit summaries. I noticed that you never write them, but they make it much easier for other people to understand what you are doing. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:35, 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)

Yes and you admitted that those edits were coming from your computer. Now, please use edit summaries as although it is not strictly required, it is very helpful to others. I don’t know anyone for that but you can try asking the editors at WT:ANIME. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:25, 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)

DYK nomination of Siegel modular variety

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)

Notice of edit war on User talk:116.49.146.144

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)

Responding on your talk page, but the issue is that you have moved the second paragraph into the first on 3 separate occasions and added the other entities sharing the same name into the lead sentence on 3 separate occasions, all without responding to my reasoning for reverting. The wording of the notice is from a template; apologies for not carefully modifying the wording.
Furthermore, I placed that notice on your talk page to make you aware of the WP:3RR rule. If you undo, whether partially or in full, another editor's actions then it is a violation of that rule. You've done so 3 times for two separate issues on San Tin. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:55, 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:

• "The article is about the constituency."

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)

It's not a threat and it never has been. It's to inform you about the rules about edit warring and 3RR specifically because I thought that you might not be aware. As for the merge, see WP:MERGEPROP. It was a bold merge based on WP:GEOLAND and is naturally open to challenge and discussion. Note: the second quotation you give was made on Talk:San Tin before any of the other comments. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Ultraman Mebius characters

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)

Yeah, but I did say in talk page that you can only make the sandbox, but not the actual page at a hasty decision. The Mebius character page is massively undeveloped that some of the contents were even plagiarised from Ultraman Wiki. Examples include the Space Monster Eleking section is just a word by word plagiarism from Ultraman Wiki article and some of the monster list lacks their nihongo tabs. Do you really call that completed? I gave you a simple order, yet you do your old ways again like the List of Ultraman: The Ultimate Hero characters as seen in the history revision. Zero stylinx (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oon835: Plagiarism is unacceptable here. Even disregarding that, the article is far too detailed and probably not notable enough. Furthermore, most of the content is unsourced. Feel free to work on the article as a draft and use the Article for creation procedure when you feel it is ready. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:06, 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)

Don't plagiarize. I moved the articles to draft space at Draft:List of Ultraman: The Ultimate Hero characters and Draft:List of Ultraman Mebius characters. Feel free to message me tomorrow. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Note that the Ultraman Wiki uses a non-commercial, no derivatives license, so you can't even use their text with attribution in most contexts. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:37, 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:

• Few months ago, my 5 lego pages was deleted by Onel5969 because they are not notable & I must had follow the wrong example from the other pages. I asked Onel for help but he ignore me. Later, I when talk to Yosemiter for help he only give me a few details & I want to continue more discussion but he said that he's tried of it. I was angry with this 2 users but instead I still continue search some one for help and no answers still. Do you know about this 2 users?
• Where can I find the source books of Power Rangers & Lego?
• I made a careless mistake with my Powered characters page that I suppose to draft it but instead I went to the wrong actual page which I didn't notice it. It was half completed because I got interupted with my boss was calling me go to work. Zero stylinx blame me and said that it's my fault. But it's not my fault I just got careless only and I want to said that I'm sorry but he won't accept it. Lucky, he help me to fixed up my pages. I accept that you moved my 2 pages into draft pages instead of delete it. I still got my other 2 draft pages while waiting for the answers.
• About the Mebius characters page my ideas is to move all the characters from the main page into the new page so I can include the monsters and aliens together. But you said that you spoted one of the monsters that I plagiarised from Ultraman Wiki like the last time you told me that I plagiarised from japanese wikipedia. Yesterday, I already told you that I'm here to proof that I'm not doing any plagiarism or copy the whole thing I just want to modify those words and fix the gramatical error only it's because of my smartphone automatically put a wrong words which I didn't notice that.
• About the draft page if I finish my draft page so I select "Summit for review" and wait for the result right?
• I just don't understand one thing when I messaging to Zero stylinx in the talk page. He told me that I messaging him at 1 am at the wrong time and I never do such a thing like that before.
• There is one problem with edit the page when I used my smartphone because there is no edit summaries and what should I do? Oon835 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Onel5969 and Yosemiter. I don't know where you can find reliable sources for Power Rangers and Lego, sorry. They aren't typically covered in great depth in traditional media, but you can ask at Wikiproject Anime and Wikiproject Comics, both which can certainly help you.
I didn't say that I noticed the plagiarism directly (that was Zero stylinx), but even starting with their material and then modifying it is not permissible, since the Ultraman Wiki is the original source and it is not reliable (in addition to potential copyright issues as Rich Farmbrough pointed out).
Yes, when you feel like your draft page is completely ready, you can click "Submit for review". Be sure that all of your content is cited from reliable sources.
Perhaps Zero stylinx is in a different time zone from you? I don't know, but it’s a complaint that you should completely ignore. Also, usually there is a box for entering edit summaries when you edit on phones. If you have problems with that then using a computer browser is not bad! — MarkH21 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not just give "a few details", I gave them multiple links for guidelines and provided search results to show that the topics lack significant coverage for what this user wants (which appears to be various WP:CATALOGUE/WP:LISTCRUFT that fail to meet WP:LISTN). Perhaps there may be a language barrier for understanding the GNG, but it is not my fault they did not like the results. I can't make sources suddenly exist. Yosemiter (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

Afd

Please notify the other article creators. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Sorry, I didn't realize that you weren't the only creator. Done! — MarkH21 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Siegel modular variety

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, Siegel modular variety), 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)

Request

Can you please help me move all my 5 Lego pages into the draft pages just like you did before?

• Lego DC Super Hero Girls
• Lego The Lone Ranger
• Lego Scooby-Doo!
• Lego The Powerpuff Girls
• Lego Overwatch

Oon835 (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oon835: Sure, but you can actually do it yourself too. It's under "More" on the top right of each page, next to the search bar. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:44, 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)

Question

Hello Mark, do you think Moshe Goldberg deserve an entry ?