Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Fibonacci number: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.
Re: Kepler Fraud
Thanks for revising my edit instead of deleting it. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion
Notifying all named accounts who have edited this article this year. There is a discussion of whether this article should contain foreign language palindromes. If you would like to comment the thread is Talk:Palindrome#Non-English_palindromes_2 Meters (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Cabal (set theory)
Simply revert with no explanation?
The article needs more justification. As it is, it sounds like a short-lived informal "club" or in-group or clique of researchers at a university who at one point in time happened to be studying a particular topic that happens to be rather obscure. Not even a formal fraternity. Scarcely notable. In fact, the only tangible evidence of it at all is a somewhat humorous-in-poor-taste title of the proceedings of some colloquium that was held over thirty years ago.
- The place for this discussion is on the talk page of Cabal (set theory). I was simply following the preferred Wikipedia modus operandi as explained in WP:BRD. It seemed to me that the word "Cabal" carries a lot more baggage for you than it does for me and these edits appear to be a form of attack on this article due to that baggage. I'd be happy to discuss your concerns on the appropriate talk page. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I altered the section to which eigenvalue-related issue belongs, and plugged a reference, please help review my alternation, and I am willing to make it better under your advise. :) From a sincere learner.
- This was better. I've done some copyediting to improve the English. The reference however, being an arXiv paper, is not considered a reliable source (unless it was actually published somewhere) and a better reference should be found, preferably one that has the specialization that is used in the article. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:8000:E003:0:0:0:1A57 (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
About my edit that you reverted on Methods of computing square roots
About the proof for the algorithm, I didn't make the proof up; I received it from Adam E. Parker, who is Assistant Professor of Mathematics at the University of Wittenberg, through a third party. I'd upload the PDF with the proof, but I don't have a Wikipedia account, so I can't upload files, so I'm kind of stuck. I don't want this to turn into an edit war with reversions every week or so, but I feel that if Wikipedia requires someone to have an account in order to be able to get a mathematical statement with a mathematical proof from a reliable source that is in the publishing process to be "noteworthy and reliable enough" to be on one of Wikipedia's pages, it sort of defeats the whole point of even letting people who don't have Wikipedia accounts from editing Wikipedia at all because an account is required to get something that meets all of Wikipedia's criteria on its page. It's like saying, "Here, you may create whatever songs you want in the music room and write them on staff paper, but we'll erase all of it within a day." Is that really what Wikipedia stands for?2601:2C1:C301:6350:383D:4226:1A53:8B3B (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Two points. First of all, results put on Wikipedia should appear in reliable secondary sources so even a pdf of the proof provided by the author would not satisfy this requirement. We are not in the business of verifying the correctness nor determining the notability of results, the scholarly community does this and we merely report on what they say. The second issue of not having an account is a bit of a red herring. Anyone can create an account for themselves and in the rare event that this is not possible, one can ask someone to create an account for them. See WP:ACCOUNT. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't quite work that way. First of all the result has to be published in a reliable journal (reliable in mathematics means peer reviewed). This is the mathematical community standard for judging correctness (not an infallible system, clearly errors get through, but major flaws are generally caught). Then, someone else needs to mention the result by using it or discussing it in their own work. This second step is what establishes notability. Wikipedia reports on what these secondary sources say. This process takes time, so new results are not generally found on Wikipedia. We are not a bulletin board and there are plenty of other venues available for "getting the word out" about some new results. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)