# User talk:Mgnbar

## Welcome

Welcome. I saw your article on pseudoholomorphic curves, which goes far beyond my knowledge. Usually, newcomers have to be helped along a bit, but you are doing great so there is not that much for me to do. I did indent the equation displays, as is usual here, and I also made all the headings on the same level (which I assume is what you want). Usually, we try not to formulas in the running text which are rendered as PNG, see Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on mathematics, but this is not universally agreed upon, so I did not change that. Finally, the "See also" section is normally reserved for links that are not mentioned in the rest of the article.

You might be interested in the WikiProject Mathematics, which is just a bunch of people who like to work on maths articles. Look at the list of participants to find other mathematicians and perhaps include yourself in the list.

Well, I hope that you like it here and that you continue contributing. Feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page.

All the best,
Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting contributions. Charles Matthews 20:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

## Science pearls

Hi,

Please notice the above project. As a mathematician, you might be especially interested in List of publications in mathematics

I’ll appreciate any help. Thank, APH 10:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

## Please vote on list of lists, a featured list candidate

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

## Here you'll learn who wrote most of the Floer homology article

Hallo Joshua, da du auf deiner userpage "Deutsch" hast, schreibe ich dir einfach mal auf deutsch.

Hier ist zu finden, wer den größten Teil des Floer homology artikels geschrieben hat: User_talk:Erkabo. Wir vier von Erkabo, die wir ja nichts von der Mathematik verstehen, freuen uns, dass die Arbeit unseres Freundes Andreas jetzt auch in der Wikipedia so großes Interesse findet.

Vielen Dank, herzliche Grüße! Rolf von: Erkabo 06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Danke für die Erklärung. Es freut mich, euch kennenzulernen. Bitte entschuldigt mein Schreiben; Lesen ist einfacher. Mgnbar 13:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, Joshua! Wir freuen uns, dass Andreas auch noch heute Menschen dazu bringt, miteinander zu reden. Rolf von Erkabo 14:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Josh, I'm responding to your message regarding the pseudoholomorphic curve article. I referenced it incorrectly and noticed the article you wrote only after I'd begun the other; I abandoned it at that point. Best, David Farris 06:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC) , now with an account!

## Moment map

Thanks for the new moment map article. Looks good. I've been meaning to write that one for awhile. -- Fropuff 17:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

## Morse homology

Thank you for making those improvements! I adjusted a few things, and took the opportunity to flesh out some things that were still rather sketchy in the article. I assume by 'morse-theoretic properties' you meant 'smooth properties', and i edited it to accordingly standardize the terminology. (If that's not the case, could you tell me what that meant?)David Farris 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And thanks once again for the further corrections! David Farris 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the chain complexes ${\displaystyle C_{*}(M,(f,g))}$ are still formatting badly, at least on my machine. I switched them to TeX in the hopes that they'd improve, but the system cleverly uses HTML as much as possible. I could force the matter, but I don't care quite enough. Cheers. Mgnbar 19:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

## Edits on Roma People article

Thanks for opening up the "Fictional Representations" section and letting in some air. I was starting to get claustrophobic looking at that huge monolithic block of text. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

## WikiProject Physics

Hi, I just discovered moment map; nice article! I invite you to join the conversations on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics; you might also be interesed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. -- linas 19:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

## Compass and straightedge

I'd appreciate your comment on Talk:Compass and straightedge. Thank you. John Reid 23:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

## Vandalism warnings on User talk:65.96.80.88

Hi! I looked a the edit history. There was a very busy vandal using that IP on October 26. Then there was a single vandalism on November 7. Then another single vandalism today. We can't be certain that a person using a particular IP address today is the same as the person who was using it a week or two ago, and nothing in the edits ties the single vandalism from today to any of the earlier ones. So I gave him the appropriate warning based on what we can see from the edit history. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Better to be generous, I suppose. Mgnbar 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

## Columbus Page

Hey, its all good. I would suggest that perhaps including one of the aforementioned references in the actual text of the article might stem the tide of people, like me, who want a source for that information. I'd do it myself, but i'm not familiar with the process of referencing as seen on the page. Batman2005 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

## morse homology

sorry to tantalize you; the fragment you pointed out was a relic of the edit that resulted in the description of the nice approach to morse-bott homology. i hope was pleasant enough by itself! David Farris 09:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

## Mathematical Physics

Hey Josh, I found you through the Wikiproject Mathematics page and saw that your interested in Mathematical Physics. As such I thought I would let you know that this article is nominated for the Math Collaboration of the week (I nominated it). Even if this article does not make the cut, it needs serious work and I am not qualified to do it as of yet. If you get the time please take a look at it; if not, I understand, and thanks for your time--Cronholm144 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

## Mathematics CotW

Hello again Josh, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

## Riemann Sphere

Of course, you're right that all manifolds are closed in themselves. I thought it was worth mentioning, as it wouldn't be clear to all readers that a closed manifold was a different from a closed set - some authors (such as Jost, who I use as a reference) follow the convention that surfaces have no boundary, and call "closed" surfaces compact surfaces. Obviously, I'm not suggesting we change the page to say "compact surface", as wikipedia doesn't use this convention, but I thought we should make it clear to those familiar with the other convention. If you want to change it back though, I have no problem with this.

Incidentally, Pic is just the first three letters of my surname, so no nerd points for me.

All the best, James pic (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

## Thanks

Thanks very much for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Much appreciated ——Ryan | tc 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Mgnbar (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

## Statistics

Re ""statistics" plural is already treated, two paragraphs down" -

Oops. Sorry, forgot to delete below. I put it at the top for a quick find by a very general reader, who might wonder why use of "statistics" can sometimes refer to the data itself, or, say, a bunch of averages, but not be interested in "Statistics". I will move it back to top unless I misunderstood the reason for its present location. Tautologist (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is more of a disambiguation than an article topic.
• 1. "Statistics" (caps) is singular, "statistics" (lower case) is plural.
• 2. "statistics" (lower case) can refer to informal scatter plots, or the raw data itself, (see 3. below, as the distinction is nontrivial), like in sports (except in the classic Sci Am article and papers by Efron), as well as to crude representaions of data, which are not algorithmically produced. So I put in "raw data" and changed "algorithm" to "function". But a better might be "transformation". What do you think?
• 3. "statistics" (lower case) is not entirely trivial to think about. Under the Bohr atom model (lots of space with points of stuff between) all of physical reality could be regarded as "statistics" (lower case), everything is a giant scatter plot, whereby any perceptual apparatus (like touch or vision) "interprets" an underlying model as being solid reality, such as the existence of a body (or a table). Bertrand Russell famously commented on this idea, but did not use "scatter plot" or this wording, talking about a table in front of him and knocking on it. Less philosophically, what were "stars" (before Hubble?), turned out to be tight scatter plots of stars, now called galaxies. In fact, our perceptual apparatus can be interpreted as subconsiously doing "Statistics" (and is so interpreted in some areas of cognitive neuroscience), and any sense data, or reality itself, as "statistics". So the expression "statistics" would belong in the field phenomenology and ontology as a subfield of metaphysics.
• 4. "statistics" can be used interchangeably with "statistical proof", and I cite examples of such use in the article of that name. I never even thought about it until writing Statistical proof, and found that this expression is in no textbook index in "Statistics", but is everywhere else (including in number theory!). I got the article examples by Googling news stories, where the expression occurred in fields all over, just in the one single last week.
• I am moving this thread to Statistics article, so please respond there. Thnx. Tautologist (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

## A Question About Lambert Equal Area Azimuthal Projection

Please forgive me if this is not the right place to ask a question. There is a beautiful example of this projection on the page. Was it derived from NASA's Blue Marble? I would like such a projection centered on the North Pole. I tried casting back onto a sphere and then, after rotation, projecting back using the formulas on the page. This, of course, left too many holes for me to patch manually. Can you give me any pointers on how to accomplish my goal? Many thanks and again, my apologies if this is not the proper forum for such a question.

--Tallpapab (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tallpapab. If you click on the image itself, then you go to a page that talks about the image. It appears to have been made by user Mdf (not me) using an application called Visible Earth. I don't know that application or Blue Marble. I myself have made similar images using an application called G.Projector (made by Robert Schmunk at NASA Goddard). It's pretty simple; you choose your image, projection, aspect, etc. and you get an image. That's about all I know. Good luck. Mgnbar (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Sorry, I should have thought to click on the image. G.Projector is, indeed, exactly what I needed. I'm on my way. A Clock is what I'm working on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallpapab (talkcontribs) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

## projective plane

Hi, Sorry about the edit conflict. Please feel free to revert me if you don't like my wholesale move of the section on Visualising the real projective plane. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just what I wanted. Thanks. But if you want to talk more about Projective plane, let's do it at Talk:Projective plane. Cheers, Mgnbar (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

## Stress (mechanics)

Hi Mgnbar, nice to get a message from someone with similar interests and I think we discussed this previously in the discussion page.
The article Stress(mechanics) in Wikipedia is getting much better since I first point out various issues regarding overall structure and comprehensiveness between mathematical discussion and text.
I have-not done any actual changes to the content and today is my first edit on the actual article of Stress(mechanics). The intention is to try emphasis what other writers already have written and point out what´s important.

You, Mgnbar, state that you fail to understand the content in the following sentence: 'classical models of continuum mechanics make a quantitatively assumetion of an average force and accordingly fails to properly incorporate "geometrical factors" as important for stress distribution and accumulation of energy during the continuum.'.
I can answer by relate to the following: 'In continuum mechanics, stress is a measure of the internal forces acting within a deformable body. Quantitatively, it is a measure of the average force per unit area of a surface within the body on which internal forces act. These internal forces are produced between the particles in the body as a reaction to external forces applied on the body.', which is exactly the same written buy another writer.

My text only emphasise on the fact and definition.

Regarding your examples of viscous fluid and elastic solid. I can´t relate to your statement because I don´t understand what you are trying to say. The gradient ( I presume it´s the fluids effect in the subject material and the produced gradient force you are referring to), force are "tensorially" related? Do you mean it´s related to size of the deformed volume?

My answer, if my interpretation of your text is correct, the assumption of a continuum and even distribution of stress within the body do not incorporate geometrical aspects of the body. The stress is in fact NOT evenly distributed and exhibit differences in concentration at sharp edges or other geometrical features within the body. The problem is thereby the assumption of a uniformed continuum and the use of a entity such as the physical force, rather than for example acceleration which by detention is more correct. The mathematical implication might look insignificant, but is "huge" if properly examined. --Haraldwallin (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your prompt response. You don't need to duplicate your responses at my talk page; I would prefer to read them here.
Continuum mechanics is a simplified view of reality. Basic continuum-mechanical models such as the Navier-Stokes equations do not incorporate subtle geometric material information such as grain boundary effects. I know nothing about such subtleties, but I imagine that they exist and can have huge effects, just as you say. I certainly have no dispute with you there.
But basic continuum-mechanical models do incorporate some 3D information about the material. When I mentioned viscous fluids, for example, I meant the following. Let x denote position, v velocity, and σ the stress tensor. Then there is a tensorial relationship
${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {\partial v_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}}+{\frac {\partial v_{j}}{\partial x_{i}}}\right)=\sum _{k}\sum _{l}a_{ijkl}\sigma _{kl},}$
where a is a tensor expressing the relationship of stress (σ) to strain (the left side of the equation). The tensor a has some symmetries, which reduce its number of independent coordinates from 81 down to 36 or 21. But it is still rich enough to express 3D anisotropy in the response of the material to stress. For example, if the material is layered, so that it shears more easily along some planes than others, this is expressible in the tensor a, right?
Furthermore, the tensor a can vary over space and time. There is no assumption that the stress is evenly distributed throughout space, if by "evenly" you mean "uniformly" or "constantly". On the other hand, do continuum-mechanical models usually assume that stress is smoothly distributed (e.g. that it is continuously differentiable)? That would not account for sharp effects such as grain boundaries.
So is it correct to say that classical models account for some geometric information (anisotropy), but not for other information (non-continuum effects)? The article Stress (mechanics) should be clear on this. Regards, Mgnbar (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mgnbar.

You can´t seriously think I can answer your argumentation above, I´m not stupid you know. hehe sorry I could not help it.
Seriously don´t take any offence, I suggest that you define and in detail explain what you are trying to say. I think you can agree that you are eager to debate and defend the classical models of continuum mechanics, which is good.
But you can´t expect me to understand the argumentation such as the above equation without telling me the conditions of the whole system. I can only guess what you are getting at.
My spontaneous reaction is I think I understand what you try to say, and in my report on galling

• Wallin H.: An investigation of friction graphs ranking ability regarding the galling phenomenon in dry SOFS contact : (Adhesive material transfere and friction), free pdf document at www.diva-portal.org found here

the notion of a connection to "energy density" or as you write "stress" and size of the deformed volume exist in the discussion chapter. The mathematical relationship in my report looks almost the same as your scalar model above. Hoverer, the problem is your use of stress (σ) to define strain, energy density and acceleration is more correct. As I said stress (σ)=(Force/Area), include the "physical" force as a variable and there is no compatibility between the force and the deformed matter. You fail to do a correct transformation from a three dimensional to a one dimensional system and therefore the definition of the model is false. --Haraldwallin (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. As I said, I'm not an expert in mechanics. I was under the impression that the material I quoted was foundational, so that I would just have to remind you of it. I'm not sure what you mean by "compatibility between the force and the deformed matter". The standard continuum-mechanical models do incorporate conservation of mass and conservation of momentum. Do you mean something more than that? Also, I'm not sure what "one-dimensional system" you're talking about. Everything I wrote about was three-dimensional.
Here's more detail. Let x be position, t time, and v velocity. This x and v are three-dimensional vectors. Let ρ be density (assumed constant), p pressure, σ the Cauchy stress tensor, and f a body force. The Navier-Stokes equations are
${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot v=0,}$
${\displaystyle \rho \left({\frac {\partial v}{\partial t}}+v\cdot \nabla v\right)=-\nabla p+\nabla \cdot \sigma +f.}$
In order to turn the latter equation into a partial differential equation purely in v, we have to relate the stress tensor to v or x in another way. For an elastic solid, the relationship is
${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {\partial u_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}}+{\frac {\partial u_{j}}{\partial x_{i}}}\right)=\sum _{k}\sum _{l}s_{ijkl}\sigma _{kl},}$
where u is displacement and s is called the compliance tensor; see Hooke's law. In a viscous fluid the relationship is
${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {\partial v_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}}+{\frac {\partial v_{j}}{\partial x_{i}}}\right)=\sum _{k}\sum _{l}a_{ijkl}\sigma _{kl},}$
as I wrote above. The Viscosity article has some discussion about this, but it assumes an isotropic material. The reference that I know best is Pollard and Fletcher: Fundamentals of Structural Geology.
Finally, I do not know enough about this material to "debate" you on its merits. I'm not coming up with this stuff on my own; it's all from the 1800s, right? I'm just trying to help you use your knowledge to improve Wikipedia. Mgnbar (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. I've skimmed through your paper, but it's pretty far away from anything I think about. It doesn't seem to have any fluid dynamics. That might explain why you and I are having trouble understanding each other; the only continuum mechanics I know is fluid dynamics (and I don't know that well). Mgnbar (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you or "the classical continuum mechanics" try to merge two incompatible attributes.

The force, stress or pressure all have the attribute of a single entity, whereas the energy and acceleration of mass have the attributes of three dimensions.

The "the classical models of continuum mechanics" describe a three dimensional system using one dimensional variables, this is ok and is correct for a couple of "special solutions" but for a generalized solution they fail to make a proper "base transformation" due to this inbuilt fault factor.

An example, examine the equation of the force. F=ma the force is not one dimensional in the right lain, but is treated as a one dimensional variable in the existing "classical models of continuum mechanics".

I hope and think we can agree about that.
Perhaps we now can agree to that this also leads to problems regarding the models in your argumentation above.

Regarding my report, the mechanics can be found in the discussion chapter page100-110(something) and is a crude schematic description of how acceleration increase "exponentially" and mass "linearly" if the zone of deformation shrinks, "deformation zone shrinks", with regard to the "geometrical factors" and the direction of the deformation, or as you probably would put it "deformation vector".

This is important, because "energy density" or energy concentration is connected to acceleration and metallic-crystals can only phase transform if the energy density reach or exceed a certain limit. --Haraldwallin (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mgnbar.

Excuse me?? What are you taking about? I quote: "You are still not using edit summaries. You continue to copy this conversation to my talk page, although I've asked you not to. It seems to me that you are more interested in discussing mechanics than in editing Wikipedia. As Bbanerje noted at Talk:Stress (mechanics), such discussions are more appropriate for iMechanica than for Wikipedia.", end quote.

I answer your questions only to make you happy and hopefully give you some input, if you don´t appreciate the discussion you are "very free" to leave me alone. I didn't start this discussion, you did. You have no businesses blaming me for anything and infact you are NOT!! polite.

Regarding me answering on your page, it is clear this discussion must be held on both pages to discriminate false statements.

And about the acceleration, if you are cleaver enough you will understand the significance of an increase in acceleration with a shrinking plastic zone. And I hope you are "polite" enough to admit it has been forgotten in previous deformation models of mechanics (before 2007). But quite frankly I don´t care what you think. The implication is already happening around the world and I´m thrilled over the prospects. The "geometrical factors" in "compressive stress" and frictional contact gives the relation (acceleration=1/x) witch increase the acceleration expectationally when x travels to 0, (or in other words the plastic zone shrinks towards an "unlimited small volume).
The schematic sketch in my report is very crude but gives all needed mathematical foundations in coordination with empiric observations to develop and improve the year 2006-2007 existing models of compressive stress and frictional deformation mechanics. --Haraldwallin (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for hurting your feelings. I was frustrated by our continuing inability to communicate very basic issues of Wikipedia use. Perhaps this is due to a language difference? I don't know.
If you read Wikipedia:Edit summary you will learn what an edit summary is and why you should use it. If you examine Special:Contributions/Haraldwallin, you will see that you have not been using edit summaries. I cannot be any clearer on this.
Your copying of the conversation to my talk page is not really a big deal to me, but it is unusual. There is no reason why having two identical copies of a text helps to "discriminate false statements".
Regarding your own material on galling, etc., I was honestly asking questions to clarify what you meant (because I do not understand it, because this is not my field). I don't think that I was being impolite, but I'm sorry if I came across that way. Please be aware that the term exponential, as it is used in the English-speaking mathematical community, does not apply to the function a = 1 / x. Mgnbar (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So, what is the proper term for the rapid increases of acceleration due to "geometrical factors" in "compressive stress" and frictional contact where the relation (acceleration=1/x) increase the acceleration very rapidly when x travels to 0, (or in other words the plastic zone shrinks towards an "unlimited small volume)?? --Haraldwallin (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mgnbar. Listen, I think you only try to annoy me.

Your statement quote: “You could say "Acceleration is inversely proportional to x" or "Acceleration varies inversely with x." But my sense is that this terminology is a little old fashioned, because it is unnecessarily vague. If one wants to say that a = 1 / x, to an audience that isn't afraid of math, then one should just say a = 1 / x and be done with it, I think.” end quote, are extremely strange if you have any knowledge of mathematics and are serious.

To explain the connection between an “exponential increase” in acceleration and a “shrinking deformed volume” in "compressive stress" and frictional contact, by the expression (acceleration=1/x) when “limes” x travels to 0, is to me NOT! vague. It’s in fact a very precise mathematical illustration to a complex mechanical event. And your suggestion “inversely proportional” see quotation gives no clear association to what takes place, which is the word “exponential" increase of acceleration with a shrinking deformed volume when the “limes” x travels to 0.

And an increase in acceleration when the deformed volume shrinks is of course important! or do you fail to acknowledge this?

The word “exponential” when describing the relation between acceleration and the shrinking volume is found in the paper as a notation and figure text. But it’s not important because it is analogically given by the boundary conditions such as the nominal penetration velocity and the presented schematic illustrated geometrical constraints. So the nature of the function for acceleration should be perfectly clear with a relative basic knowledge in mathematics and mechanics. --Haraldwallin (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am definitely not trying to annoy you. I am actually trying to help you learn how to edit Wikipedia, just as others helped me when I started. We have gotten sidetracked into a discussion of your thesis.
I agree with you that the statement "acceleration = 1 / x" is clear and precise. Great. I believe you that it is also important; I cannot judge this, because I do not work in this field. The statement "'acceleration = 1 / x' is an exponential relationship" is wrong. But let's not talk about it any more; it has nothing to do with your editing of Wikipedia, which is all that I care about. Mgnbar (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mgnbar. Ok, I’m not responsible for your own opinion.

However, I already discussed the absence of edit summaries so please, it is not necessary to mention them again. But I repeat my answer in case you missed it.
I’m not the only one who forgets the edit summaries and if you feel you have a lot of spare time you may discuss this with all the other editors on Wikipedia instead of bothering me whit long recitation that only you might get any satisfaction from.

Regarding eventual citations in the article, as I said. My text only emphasize on the fact and definitions of continuum mechanics and I believe my contribution is still in the wiki article, so just read it.
My report statement is the following: The relationship acceleration = 1 / x makes the “acceleration” increase exponentially when “(limes) x travels to 0”, not the opposite!! If you have trouble reading it’s not my fault.
But I must ask you, why do you even consider presenting me equations of continuum mechanics if you don’t understand the boundaries and nature of it’s origin?
And of course I get annoyed when your tone is not very nice and far from polite and you accused me of starting this conversation when I clearly didn´t.
--Haraldwallin (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talkcontribs) 23:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi talk. Ok, I’m not responsible for your own opinion.

However, I already discussed the absence of edit summaries so please, it is not necessary to mention them again. But I repeat my answer in case you missed it.
I’m not the only one who forgets the edit summaries and if you feel you have a lot of spare time you may discuss this with all the other editors on Wikipedia instead of bothering me whit long recitation that only you might get any satisfaction from.

This is the first time that you have actually addressed the issue of edit summaries. Other editors will ask you to use them, until you do. But as far as our discussion goes, the matter is closed. Thank you.

Regarding eventual citations in the article, as I said. My text only emphasize on the fact and definitions of continuum mechanics and I believe my contribution is still in the wiki article, so just read it.

This is the first time that you have actually addressed the issue of citations. The matter is closed. Thank you.

My report statement is the following: The relationship acceleration = 1 / x makes the “acceleration” increase exponentially when “(limes) x travels to 0”, not the opposite!! If you have trouble reading it’s not my fault.
But I must ask you, why do you even consider presenting me equations of continuum mechanics if you don’t understand the boundaries and nature of it’s origin?
And of course I get annoyed when your tone is not very nice and far from polite and you accused me of starting this conversation when I clearly didn´t.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I started the discussion of your work, and I was happy to discuss your work until I realized that you were not going to address my concerns about your Wikipedia editing. That's when I became frustrated. I have never criticized the substance of your work. You have expertise in it and I do not, and I have repeatedly said so. I was just trying to help you present your ideas in English.

You have addressed my two concerns, and you have helped me understand your work a little better. So for me this discussion is finally finished. I hope that you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Goodbye, Haraldwallin. Mgnbar (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mgnbar. You still give false statements and I quote:

“:This is the first time that you have actually addressed the issue of edit summaries. Other editors will ask you to use them, until you do. But as far as our discussion goes, the matter is closed. Thank you. This is the first time that you have actually addressed the issue of citations. The matter is closed. Thank you.”, end quote.

My answer. You have written and expressed your opinion about “edit summaries” and “citations” in both the Wikipedia Stress (mechanics) discussion page and on my own personal discussion page. I have written the same answer on all occasions and I’m sure you have read it. In case you missed it, I repeated them once again as you clearly have seen.

I believe your main concern is not the content of my eventual changes to the wiki article Stress (mechanics), but rather the possibility to make a fuss over a very marginal problem and a common mistake for all editors on Wikipedia.

Why you chose me as your victim for your misdirected concern, I have no idea. But there are possibly some logical explanation.

Regarding my English as you so nobly try to improve, I think it’s pretty obvious the problem was not my writing, it was your ability to read. I wrote that the acceleration may increase exponential (with x approach 0). NOT!!! an exponential mathematical relation, as you insisted. To mention an “increase in acceleration” rather than to discuss a “relation” makes the outcome and implication to the mechanics much more legible and clear.

The context of my writing was very clear on that point and the implication on stress modeling is huge and most importantly, my changes to the wiki article Stress (mechanics) are still present so someone must have liked them.

And please read what you write, because you were not very polite. --Haraldwallin (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mgnbar. You still give false statements and I quote:

“:This is the first time that you have actually addressed the issue of edit summaries. Other editors will ask you to use them, until you do. But as far as our discussion goes, the matter is closed. Thank you. This is the first time that you have actually addressed the issue of citations. The matter is closed. Thank you.”, end quote.

You have written and expressed your opinion about “edit summaries” and “citations” in both the Wikipedia Stress (mechanics) discussion page and on my own personal discussion page. I have written the same answer on all occasions and I’m sure you have read it. In case you missed it, I repeated them once again as you clearly have seen.

I believe your main concern is not the content of my eventual changes to the wiki article Stress (mechanics), but rather the possibility to make a fuss over a very marginal problem and a common mistake for all editors on Wikipedia.

Why you chose me as your victim for your misdirected concern, I have no idea. But there are possibly some logical explanation.

Regarding my English as you so nobly try to improve, I think it’s pretty obvious the problem was not my writing, it was your ability to read. I wrote that the acceleration may increase exponential (with x approach 0). NOT!!! an exponential mathematical relation, as you insisted. To mention an “increase in acceleration” rather than to discuss a “relation” makes the outcome and implication to the mechanics much more legible and clear.

The context of my writing was very clear on that point and the implication on stress modeling is huge and most importantly, my changes to the wiki article Stress (mechanics) are still present so someone must have liked them.

And please read what you write, because you were not very polite. --Haraldwallin (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: Parts of this conversation appear on this talk page, and parts appear at User talk:Haraldwallin. Both versions are damaged. Mgnbar (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

## Hyphenation question

Michael, I hope you'll humor a silly formatting question. In the phrase "X-Y-plane", what is the correct kind of dash/hyphen/etc. to use? Also, is "XY-plane" better? I think not, because it suggests that X and Y are multiplied, but maybe this is pedantic. Mgnbar (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I write xy-plane, but I've never thought through the issues nor researched prevailing usages. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Mgnbar (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My name is Juliana de Melo Bezerra. I am a phd student at ITA (www.ita.br). I am doing a research regarding members’ motivation in virtual communities, and my case study is Wikipedia. I would like your collaboration in my research. If you are interested, please contact me and I will send you some questions. To contact me, please go to my userpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmbbmj) and click on Toolbox > E-mail this user.Jmbbmj (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

## E-mail

Thanks for your e-mail. No, the language barrier doesn't appear to be the main issue here, and it was perhaps a bit naïve of me to suppose so, but I thought it might be worth a try since that would be so easily remediable. I have all but finished my involvement in the matter. - Tournesol (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

## Projective planes

Hi, I know that it has been a while, but I have been working at revising the Projective plane article, and it has taken far longer than I anticipated. My original intention was to simply reorganize the page and throw in a couple of minor edits, but as I worked on this I found holes that needed to be filled and problems on linked pages that needed to be fixed. Net result - I'm still not finished, there are a couple of sections that need to be written, but since you are interested in this article, I was wondering if you would look at what I've got so far and give me some feedback. Thanks. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Great; I have posted my comments at User_talk:Wcherowi/Projective planes. Mgnbar (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your suggestions were all good and I appreciate them. It is good to have a second pair of eyes looking at something like this. Thanks again. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mgnbar, Wikipedia have never been about consensus. Wikipedia is about making new correct and useful information public for a brooder amount of people quicker and within a shorter time interval than ordinary dictionaries.
This means researchers with a specific knowledge may help other people get access to it and speedup the expansion of the world mainstream knowledge. I think you agree It´s a god deed to share information even if this knowledge is regarded new for the ordinary layman and in the forefront of science.
Wikipedia has never been about satisfying some perverse peoples needs to act as deputies for bureaucratic hegemonies. For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if you can’t give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.
And do you Mgnbar really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isn’t based on his or her own knowledge including research? --Haraldwallin (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

## Mgnbar. What is a stupid act??

Hi Mgnbar consensus means that every body must agree. I don’t think Wikipedia have redefined the word "consensus", even if they try to redefine the word “consensus” it doesn’t matter because the question is whether you people are doing something terribly wrong and stupid? Or if my work, pictures, theories, references, text and contributions to Wikipedia are wrong.

Clearly vast amounts of my contributions are still present in Wikipedia articles such as pictures, text and theories. Everything I have put in are still there except the one reference to all the pictures, theories and text!!
The question is if it’s ok to use your own scientific work in Wikipeida.
For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if you can’t give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.
But do anybody really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isn’t based on his or her own knowledge including research?

And, according to Wikipedia rules, if someone want to improve the articles and for some reason doesn’t want my report as a reference, they must prove it wrong by discussions on the talk page.
If the reference is found to be wrong. Then all the information, pictures and theories which I have contributed to in the Wikipedia articles galling, wear and Stress(mechanics) must be deleted. Because my contributions are closely linkt to my research.
God luck with deleting all my contributions =) I think you have several hours of work in front of you and still you will do a terrible stupid mistake.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Haraldwallin. I have never tried to delete your contributions, and I have never called your acts stupid. You must be responding to some other editor; I have no idea what you're talking about. Mgnbar (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, as I have pointed out to you already, Wikipedia's Consensus policy clearly states that consensus, as it applies to the Wikipedia community, does NOT require everyone to agree. Mgnbar (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

## References in Riemann sphere

A gold medallion for math

I think it is a really good article but lacks inline citations.--Ssola (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that medallion. The article is decent (it could always be better motivated and more accessible). More inline citations would help, although I feel that math writing warrants fewer inline citations than other forms of writing (because it's logical rather than empirical). Perhaps I will get around to adding some. Cheers. ¬¬¬¬
OK! You're in reason. I might translate it to Catalan in the future. --Ssola (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:SpiralKnightsTownSquare.png

Thanks for uploading File:SpiralKnightsTownSquare.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:SpiralKnightsGateMap.png

Thanks for uploading File:SpiralKnightsGateMap.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:SpiralKnightsCharacter.png

Thanks for uploading File:SpiralKnightsCharacter.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:SpiralKnightsBlastNetwork.png

Thanks for uploading File:SpiralKnightsBlastNetwork.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spiral Knights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wizard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

## Mirror symmetry article

Hello,

I noticed that you're a member of WikiProject Mathematics and that you've expressed interest in mathematical physics. I wanted to let you know that the article on mirror symmetry is currently a featured article candidate.

If you're interested, we'd love to hear your thoughts on this page. Please note that you do not need to be an expert on the subject.

Polytope24 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Mgnbar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)