User talk:Lemchastain

January 2022

Dear Dj., .. I hope I did not write anything that seemed to be attacking you personally. -

1) Yes. This right here is your user talk page. You have final say about what is on it; you can delete any content from it that you want. [GOOD-ljc]

Lem 18 Jan 2022 -- Well, I just took a look in the Teahouse, and it doesn't look like chaos is completely avoided.

== The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing... help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

&Lem: My error in touching other people's stuff. I'm sorry, and hope I've learned my lesson.

, but generally you should avoid "going back in time" to make edits.

If you want to make a more substantial change to a past edit, often inserting "(edited: but see entry below for January 19)" is the right thing to do.

Also, to clarify because I cannot tell whether it needs clarification: the term "edit conflict" usually means that the edit was made at nearly the same time

LJC -- I just got that again; so a longer response to Quantling is not where it was. It's too late to try again -- to have it removed again??

I apologize that my advice is given despite being unsolicited. I hope that it is useful nonetheless. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

LJC -- Thanks for your effort Quantliing Lemchastain (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Quantling, Thanks for the help. Someone else alerted me to adding comments at the bottom. I can't say I'd do it that way: who wants to read everything from 2015 or earlier to catch up on the most recent comments. It's good that dates are added automatically, but again, up front makes sense to me; with both ends OK too. I did do a comment in the 'History' section of this "Article", AND asked that it not be deleted for a day or two; since I am trying to reach any of the 'Axonometric Projection' writers; or other writer with an interest in the math of the subject. It was removed almost immediately -- with no explanation. Is this when 'Edit Warring begins -- after a stab in the back? Quantling Nje-de Lemchastain (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It was removed almost immediately -- with no explanation. This is false. If you would make a better effort to acquaint yourself with the basics of editing Wikipedia, you would learn about page histories and edit summaries. Here is the edit that reverted your addition; it came with a very clear and correct explanation, viz., that it is inappropriate to use the body of an article as a venue for contacting the authors of the article. Indeed, that is precisely the kind of thing (discussion among editors of how to improve article content) that article talk-pages are for. --JBL (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

^(ec) @Lemchastain: about adding comments to the bottom, you say: "I can't say I'd do it that way". Do have another look at Help:Using talk pages to which I already pointed, but you erased it. Specially look at the section WP:TALKREPLY. Among other things, it says:

• Add your comment below the last entry in the discussion. If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it. Use a colon (:) to indent your message to create a threaded message. See Indentation below for more information on indenting talk pages with colons.

This is how it is supposed to be done on Wikipedia, and if you do it that way, you will notice that talk page discussions will evolve much more smoothly and perhaps even pleasantly. - DVdm (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lemchastain: you make valid points about different ways the talk pages could be handled. For better or worse however standard conventions now exist. These conventions have been shaped over time and represent a good balance of priorities. Nonetheless these conventions can be a bit counterintuitive to those who are not used to them. As other authors have pointed out, the article pages themselves are poor places for communications between authors. In fact, pretty much the only things that should be on article pages are the things that you would find in a printed encyclopedia. The talk pages are much better for communications. And there are many help pages and manual of style pages and pages to get help with edit wars, etc. It can take a while to get ones bearings but it works quite well. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 23:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lemchastain: in addition, do not change or delete your own comments when somebody already replied to them as you did here and here — see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. - DVdm (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t use article talk pages to leave a message for the subject

They are only there to discuss improvements to the article. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Explanation

I have removed your message from Doug Weller's talk and am replying to it here because there is a simple misunderstanding. You posted at Talk:Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight, but that is an article talk page. If you want to leave a message for the user, use User talk:Rosiestep. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the better explanation. Between you and GoingBatty, I now get the distinction. Previously, I was just told not to write on an Article page; which did not seem to be quite right: however, I had written on the talk page for the article about the user -- not the user's talk page. Dear Rosiestep, Please try to see the material (deleted from that first talk page) for what was meant to be an overdue thank you. And a Distelfink for you in any case. Rosiestep GoingBatty

Correction: the prior order did say "Article talk page". I just saw "article", and knew I hadn't written on an article page. (talk) Ljc 17:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad this is sorted. Doug Weller talk 21:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Lemchastain! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, I can see that you've had a few hiccups along the way with Talk page usage and such, and you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Help pages
• Main help desk – get answers to your questions about editing Wikipedia
• Talk page guidelines
• Help using Talk pages

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center. Feeling a bit flustered about all the many rules and conventions around here? A mentorship program exists, that could pair you up with an experienced user who can help. See WP:MENTOR.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Writing about my math article

Dear Mathglot, While I still turn to Wiki-pedia for reliable information, my delayed response to your note should hint at my 'abandoning all hope' of becoming a contributor. I was not able to write about my (peer reviewed) article from 1989, "Axonometric Projections". Its only hope here is that some contributor with a mathematical background will read it, and find it worthy of mention. [To greatly exaggerate, imagine Einstein trying to explain "Special Relativity" on Wiki-pedia before any writers understood it. The similarity is that i don't think many people have read my article; else how could I be the first to offer a correction 32 later -- which appears at: "https://edgj/index.php/EDGJ/issue/view/237" .] At some point, I will want to discuss special cases for this problem.

  Instead, I may try "arVix.org".  Although not peer reviewed, it does allow some exposure.   Aside from further comments on the 3-D case, I would also like to write about the "Pythagorean Triplets".  Again, this is not the place:  before mentioning that, I had reviewed current Internet pages, and found nothing new.  It was then kindly suggested that I look at what had already been written:  "Albert, have you checked Newton's work?"  {Again, I exaggerate, and am not that smug.}  Next, I have extended the 3-D case into 4-D, and think that should be mentioned; hoping that it does not duplicate prior work on polytopes.   Then, finally, the 4-D solution seems to easily generalize into higher dimensions; which could be an afterthought to a 4-D article.  Unfortunately, I do not have any contacts to run any of this by (i.e. Johnson, Conway, and Wenninger have passed away; Sloane is busily retired, and R.W. has not responded).
  I will also have to come up to date on publishing software.  LaTex sound good, but I'm not sure which version to load into a "Mint" computer.  Luckily, arVix.org accepts '.PDF', and '.HTML'.   

_SO_, if there are any mathematics professors out there that are a bit curious, let me know. I am not sure which math. area of arVix my 2-D article should be in: number theory, algebraic geometry, or general mathematics. User talk:Mathglot or? talk (talk) Ljc 19:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Got your messages, both here and on my Talk page. Please see discussion below on #Talk page conventions. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Lem, your comment above was tacked on to the end of the "Welcome!" section, where no one will notice it. I added a section header for you, to give it more prominence. If the section title "Writing about my math article" doesn't meet with your approval, feel free to change it to whatever you like. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

&?

@Mathglot: Dear Mathglot, That is fine. Thank you. User:@Mathglot (talk) Ljc 05:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Now that you've mastered #Talk page conventions, let's get back to the question about your math article. It sounds like you've gotten some good feedback already, and you understand some of the issues about conflict of interest (see WP:COI) including writing on Wikipedia about your own research and citing it (see WP:SELFCITE), and also that it is best if another editor writes about your research, if anyone does. As this is a volunteer project, you can't ensure that that will happen, but you can try to interest other editors in writing about you or your research, as long as you understand that they might be busy with something else.

One thing which is for sure, is that Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform for writing an article about unpublished mathematical theories, and I wasn't clear if you understood that or not; if your theories remain unpublished by a mathematical journal and reviewed elsewhere demonstrating their importance beyond the average mathematical journal article, there is virtually zero chance it would have an article about it at Wikipedia, and I wasn't sure if you were clear on this point. This is based on Wikipedia's WP:Notability policy, which you should have a look at.

Given all this, do you have a specific question? I will try to either answer you, or direct you to the right place at Wikipedia to find an answer, if I can. Mathglot (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

&??

@Mathglot: (from Lem) Dear Mathglot, Thanks for the continued attention, but we may be nearly done. I'm now glad I wasn't able to write freely: there is no benefit in writing about your own work anonymously, and I've no interest in just summarizing other topics in general. As to "Axonometric Projections", that was published in 1989 in EDGJ. However, now it isn't imperative to have that mentioned here: I hope to get it onto 'arVix'in the original form (with 2021 Correction); or as a revision that incorporates the Correction and a special case not previously covered. After that is done, I may write another article on a similar 2 dimensional problem. {Of course, that could never be done here originally.} I'll try to just sign off as Ljc. @Mathglot (talk) Ljc 02:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The very best of luck to you, and if you ever have any questions, feel free to contact me. Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk page conventions

I got your message on my Talk page, but it had a garbled signature. I'd like to suggest that you repeat your question at the help desk, as you will likely get more help there. However, before you attempt that, please practice replying to me here on your Talk page, by using the {{Reply}} template, and don't forget to add your signature at the end of *every* message you write on a Talk page.

Please reply to this message, by copying the following and pasting it below my message, with the four tildes being the very last thing in your message:

: {{Reply|Mathglot}} I got your message... (add any comments you want here). ~~~~

That colon that you can see at the beginning of the line will indent your response one more tab stop than my message, which is the standard for talk page message replies; for more about replies and indentation, see WP:THREAD. Can you please try this now so you can see how it works? I'll reply back to you, so you know I got your message (there may be a short delay; be patient). Once you've got this, I'll link the help desk for you, and then you should try your question there. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I got your msg.;hadn't planned on checking in again today, but did. I had also made a comment at the end of your little 'edit to the death' exchange with that other editor, but no personal offense meant of either of you. (talk) Ljc 03:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lem, your {{Reply}} template worked, which is why I saw your message here, but your signature still isn't working quite yet. Please try again; copy and paste this:

::: {{Reply|Mathglot}} (your comments here) ~~~~

This time, note the *three* colons (one more than in my message):and don't forget four tildes at the end! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason I am emphasizing the WP:TALK page guidelines and this exercise in replying to another user, is that your Talk page above is filled with explanations by various users about how to use the Talk page, and about misunderstandings on your part about the actions of other editors, partly based on your level of mastery of interaction with other editors here. I haven't forgotten the question you asked in the section above, and I'd definitely would like to get back to it, but getting on board with discussion with other editors is really a prerequisite before anything else. Please try a reply once more, on this page, and be sure to add your signature by typing four tildes at the end of your message. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Hello World! @Mathglot (talk) Ljc 05:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lem. I got your {{Reply}} message, but your username is not linked, only your Talk page is. Are you by any chance using a custom user signature that you set up in your preferences? According to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, you are encouraged to provide a link to your user page, but currently your signature does not have one. Is this your intention? If it is, then your "Talk page exercise" is working. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Oh! Yeah, I started using Ljc at some point, and then forgot about it during an absence of several days. Ljc Lemchastain talk @Mathglot (talk) Ljc 16:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Congrats, you've now demonstrated that you're able to use proper indentation, reply to a user, and sign your posts. We can now close this discussion, and go back to your original question above at #Writing about my math article; see you there... Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk page conventions again

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), instead of trying to write your signature with individual characters or using a pseudonym. And please read and try to follow the tutorials linked in the A belated welcome! section above.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Using article talk pages

Here is a help guide that may be of use to you: Help:Talk pages. JBL (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Continued ignorance of talk page conventions

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anita5192 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Anita, Would not "articles for deletion" have been a more fair venue than your unilateral deletion?

I have simply been trying to move the Pythagorean triples topic forward from the somewhat obsolete "m" and "n" parametric equations.

I see that you list number theory as an interest. If you could put me in contact with an active number theorist, whom would not mind considering something as simple as Pythagorean triples, I would appreciate it greatly. Ideally, it would be someone more interested in mathematics than in obstructive conventions.

Two main points of the paper I had been working on for weeks were anticipated by Overmars & Ntogramatzidis in 2015. It is on "arXiv.com", but has never actually been published. As I tried to explain, this is an obstruction to anyone going forward on Wiki-pedia in the areas they covered: 1. Not published, so can't be discussed, and 2. their priority prevents others from publishing the same, or similar findings. {It is unlikely that anyone will go to the trouble to get an article published which only summarizes the 2015 paper of O.&N.}

Thanks for any such references,

Lem Chastain (talk) Ljc 17:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit to the Pythagorean triple article instead of its associated talk page, and the subsequent adjustments that you made to it, are not the proper way to promote this information. Please read and follow the Wikipedia guidelines linked above on your talk page (this page). And please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), instead of trying to write your signature with individual characters or using a pseudonym. You have now been warned about these issues several times.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought Anita5192 was your pseudonym. No number theory contacts. Thanks anyway.

here come 4 tildes and nothing else. (talk) Ljc 22:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Lemchastain, I hope you don't mind a word from me. You commented that "This article, in total, can't be called the last word on Pythagorean triples..." Well, no article in Wikipedia is supposed to be the last word on its subject, and that's by design. It is implied simply by the fact that Wikipedia is an *encyclopedia*, and we do not have comments inside articles explicitly saying so - if we did, every single article would need one. An encyclopedia is not intended to push a subject forward. An encyclopedia is something at the trailing edge of academia, not the leading edge. Wikipedia is intended to summarise the currently accepted state of a subject, and only covers material that is already published in what we call Reliable Sources. So we're interested in, for example, peer-reviewed papers published in respected journals, that have been through a proper editorial process. We want Secondary Sources that summarize the state of the art, not Primary sources that try to push the art forward. So your own personal research, and the unpublished research of Overmars & Ntogramatzidis, are not relevant in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. If this line of research should progress, should be published, and should be covered in peer-reviewed sources, it might then be applicable here. But I stress, Wikipedia will only be interested in it after that has happened - because an encyclopedia is not the right place for describing new unpublished work or for pushing a subject forward. Does this help you understand the problem with your approach here? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, at least it was not a condescending comment -- for a change. With, "not the last word.." I was belaboring what you point out should be obvious for any entry. Of course, you've opened my eyes with the view that Wiki-pedia is designed to stay behind the times. So by wanting to improve this topic, I'm a dangerous rebel -- or would be if the deleters weren't so quick and effective. {I see a lot of good information on Wiki-pedia, and admire those that have struggled making long informative articles comply with some collection of "conventions". Obviously, the articles would not be as good if writers did not carefully edit before going before the deleters. But for a beginner, it seems like a lot of work to publish anonymously.} The O. & N. paper is still as problem, since they are not now looking to get it published -- so that it _could_ be summarized by a secondary source. (This is confusing. are you saying that even a peer reviewed, published paper would qualify as a source for a wiki-pedia article, but must first be rehashed as a secondary source. Then wouldn't every citation consist of two linked sources? don't trouble with an extensive explanation. I've pretty much given up on this topic via Wiki-pedia, and publishing has its own hurdles.)(talk) Ljc 01:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)