User talk:DVD206

e^{i\pi \ }

This user is a mathematician.

This user is male.

A, B and C

This user prefers not to use the serial comma.

en

These users can read and write English.

ru

Русский — родной язык этого участника.

LaTeX

This user can typeset using LaTeX.

Daviddaved 22:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

I thought we could start fresh, so here's a new welcome for you:

Welcome!

Hello, DVD206, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trig identities[edit]

I've moved your page here: User:Daviddaved/A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix. Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of content -- we call it "original research". (Funny, that's always considered a good thing elsewhere...) I also tried to clean up the page for you slightly. For example, I used the {{arXiv}} template to make a link to your paper. If it gets published, we *may* get to use content from your page in the main part of this encyclopedia.

Feel free to ask for help, either on my Talk page or at WikiProject Mathematics.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from User:Daviddaved/A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JodyB_talk 23:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is stricken as my revert was in error. JodyB_talk 18:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain yourself[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to publish mathematical research.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix.

Please explain your edits. - Altenmann >t 23:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maths[edit]

"ChaosControl", your remarks are incomprehensible. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Daviddaved/A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix[edit]

User:Daviddaved/A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daviddaved/A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Daviddaved/A trigonometric identity for a circulant matrix during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies[edit]

I was just informed that I mistakenly reverted work you were doing on your userpage in connection with an article. It was not my intent to revert anything done in userspace. I see that the problem has been corrected so there is nothing I can do. However please know that I apologize for my error and am happy to assist should you need it. JodyB_talk 18:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You are blocked for repeated removal of afrtricle deletion notices and 100% absence of communication from your side. This was done to prevent further disruption of wikipedia work. - Altenmann >t 06:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Binomial coefficients and Trigonometry[edit]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Binomial coefficients and Trigonometry. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Binomial coefficients and trigonometry. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Binomial coefficients and trigonometry - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Eeekster (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Binomial coefficients and trigonometry[edit]

The article Binomial coefficients and trigonometry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

this appears to be a new, unpublished paper. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Violates WP:OR.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Spectral properties[edit]

A tag has been placed on Spectral properties requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Interlude 65 01:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Total positivity property[edit]

A tag has been placed on Total positivity property requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Interlude 65 01:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effective resistances and Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator[edit]

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Effective resistances and Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Basic definitions and background. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Application to electrical networks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conductivity

Basic definitions and background (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conductivity

Graphs and manifolds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Graph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The square root of the minus Laplacian[edit]

A tag has been placed on The square root of the minus Laplacian requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Psychonaut (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012[edit]

In a recent edit to the page Nevanlinna–Pick interpolation, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Application to electrical networks[edit]

A tag has been placed on Application to electrical networks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Electric Catfish 15:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Eeekster. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation problem, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Variation diminishing property. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Applications to classical problems[edit]

A tag has been placed on Applications to classical problems requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eeekster (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the genus of a graph listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect On the genus of a graph. Since you had some involvement with the On the genus of a graph redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Psychonaut (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Variation diminishing property[edit]

The article Variation diminishing property has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not for proofs or for original research.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Psychonaut (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Electrical networks application[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Electrical networks application. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Electrical network. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Electrical network - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Eeekster (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Random walk and hitting probability[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Random walk and hitting probability. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Random walk. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Random walk - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Eeekster (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Total positivity property. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Eeekster (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Basic definitions and background[edit]

The article Basic definitions and background has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Bad tone, unsourced and more of a lecture than an article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On random processes[edit]

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of On random processes, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Brownian motion and hitting probability. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

You were notified of an ANI thread about you a while ago. I notice you are continuing to edit, and continuing to have other editors question your edits, without responding. This is a collaborative project, and discussion is not optional. Please stop editing these pages and discuss your edits, or I will be forced to block this account until you do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of On random processes[edit]

A tag has been placed on On random processes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 23:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cauchy matrices[edit]

A tag has been placed on Cauchy matrices requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page[edit]

To move a page, you should use the "move function". Preserving the edit history is important. See Wikipedia:Moving a page Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, On determinant identities[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, On determinant identities. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Schur complement. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Schur complement - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. DMacks (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y-Δ and star-mesh transforms listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Y-Δ and star-mesh transforms. Since you had some involvement with the Y-Δ and star-mesh transforms redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DMacks (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On random processes listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect On random processes. Since you had some involvement with the On random processes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Psychonaut (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Effective resistances and Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Effective resistances and Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have pages - Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator and Schur complement. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator and Schur complement - you might like to discuss new information at Talk:Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator and Talk:Schur complement.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Psychonaut (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for creating innapropriate/incomprehensible pages, and extremely poor communication. It is clear this are both long-term issues, going back at least two years. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DVD206 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Could you, please, allow me to continue editing the pages at my User:Davidded/ space. What happened is that I thought that the pages I was editing are in my User space and not visible to the world, I thought that they are in the sandbox and was freely adding and editing them, without many comments. I am sorry about that, I got confused with the creating article guide lines. I promise not to add any material to Wikipedia visible pages unless it complies with the guidelines.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - numerous {{unblock}} messages posted - only one will be considered - not this one. Toddst1 (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The major issue here is that, given a majority of the edits you've made (redundant copies notwithstanding), the content in your sandbox, etc., one would need to see significant evidence that you understand what makes an article encyclopedic and why your previous contributions were unacceptable under Wikipedia's guidelines. For example, can you please explain how you would edit User:Daviddaved/On random processes to be an article that is encyclopedic? My estimation is that you have knowledge to contribute, but that a reading of WP:5P and other best practices might be in order. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DVD206 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, Well, User:Daviddaved/On random processes was intended to talk about connection between discrete and continuous models for Brownian motions, which is an encyclopedic subject, I think. It also pertains to wave-particle duality phenomenon. The article was first titled "Random walk and Brownian motion", but then I copied it and changed the name. The problem was that, I got confused, with what changes are visible to the world and so saved some work that was not ready for publishing to Wikipedia yet. Now, I understand what is in my Sandbox and promise not to make the same mistake again. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - numerous {{unblock}} messages posted - only one will be considered - not this one. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I can't see how that is possible. You've created sandbox pages many times in the past, so you clearly do know why they are and that they should be in your userspace. It also appears that you kept creating such pages even after speedy deletion motices started rolling in here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amd of course it is rather hard to believe that you thought the redirect pages you were creating were sandboxes. Are you sure this is the explanation you want to go with? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DVD206 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, well, I would create a title/caption at my sandbox file and then create an article with the name, assuming it is going to be in the sandbox, since I would get an invitation to create the article after following my sandbox link. I was not sure why I started to get deletion notices after the invitation. Only later I realized that my pages in the process of work were visible to the world. And I started to make sure that my work is in the User:Daviddaved/ directory. Now the system is clear to me, so could you, please reconsider blocking my account? Thank you, Daviddaved PS. I was only working for the last several days on the articles, in the past 2-3 years, last time I was blocked was two years ago for a different reason. These are honest mistakes, being made because of my unfamiliarity w/Wikipedia editing interface and process, which I believe, I understand now.

Decline reason:

Per Beeblebrox' comments below and user has not explained how unblocking would lead to a better encyclopedia. I suggest you make one more attempt at requesting unblocking and address these points. WP:GAB is required reading as well. Toddst1 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I should have mentioned the first time that you do not need to reply to every remark with a new unblock request. I am deliberately leaving those open so that a previously uninvolved admin can review your block, but one open at a time is sufficient.Iit has been mentioned at the ANI thread regarding your edits that you may be engaging in original research. It may be helpful of you could explain what your understanding of this policy is and how it applies to your editing. Note that even in sandboxes or userspace Wikipedia is not a place to host material that is not ultimately suitable for this project. I am honestly not sure, not being particularly intersted in mathematics myself, if what you have posting qualifies as such or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit previously declined requests; your current one supersedes it. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, was not sure where to put the appeal...

Daviddaved 01:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DVD206 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Additional explanation Dear, Admin. The original research concern with my posts was resolved about two years ago, and I was unblocked. Being professional mathematician and I am well aware of what is happening in my field. I have made a number of contributions to Wikipedia math pages, which were accepted and have references to my work at Wikipedia articles, so I am considering myself a valuable participant of the project. In the last several days I was working on the articles about inverse problems, which is an encyclopedic mathematical subject with many practical applications, but is underrepresented in the Wikipedia, IMHO. Unfortunately, I have confused the visibility options of my articles and by mistake published some of unfinished material, instead of saving it to my User:Daviddaved user space. One can see from my edit history that I realized the error, and started to put intermediate work in the User:Daviddaved/ directory, but was blocked anyway for publishing unfinished material, that is work in progress. Could you, please reconsider the block. I think it is an unfair punishment for a technical error. Thank you, Daviddaved 00:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC). PS. Hope this is the right way to appeal

Decline reason:

I have studied your editing history in great detail. You have made few constructive contributions to articles, many of those that you have made have have been reverted, and others are very minor. You have persistently written pages which do look not like articles, but rather like excerpts from an account in a book or other continuous prose (whether you have created them in main space or in user space). It has in the past been suggested that you have been using Wikipedia as a store for your own work not intended as Wikipedia articles. A good deal of your editing does indeed seem to confirm this view, such as for example your reference in your sandbox to "The inverse problems, that this book is concerned with..." and your inclusion of other material which makes sense in a draft for a book, but not in a draft for an encyclopaedia article. Everything I have seen suggests that your main use of Wikipedia is as a free web host to hold your own research work. Your claim not to have realised that content in your user space is publicly visible fits ill with the fact that you have had numerous user space pages deleted from March 2010 onwards. I see no evidence whatever to suggest that, if you were to be unblocked, you would change your ways and become a useful contributor. In addition, your string of disingenuous unlock requests are a waste of our time, so your talk page access has been removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Question: Why did it take you until you were blocked before you started trying to communicate with others? This talk page is filled with requests to dicuss things. I see a post from Floquenbeam above begging you to participate in a discussion with other people. I don't see any evidence that you have made any reasonable attempt to hold a discussion with anyone until you were blocked. Can you explain why? --Jayron32 04:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this user able to edit userspace drafts during the time in which he is blocked? I've copied one of his deleted pages into a userspace draft and encouraged him to develop it further. I've also done so with an article for which deletion was proposed. See my comments below. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't think this "indefinite" block will last very long. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daviddaved has various edits like this one that are valid contributions. The problematice things seem to result from putting things into the article space that were not ready to be there. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of material are you intending to write?[edit]

Dear Daviddaved,

I don't think there is going to be much dispute that the material you're writing is on an "encyclopedic mathematical subject". However, what is not clear is whether you're actually writing encyclopedia articles, as opposed to material in some other genre or for some other audience (such as a scholarly article, a technical report, or lecture notes). As a general-purpose encyclopedia, Wikipedia publishes only short articles which are aimed at a general audience and which summarize the most salient facts which have already been well established in other published sources. This scope excludes, for example, instructional material for students, detailed technical surveys for those who already have expert knowledge, and research findings which have not already attracted sufficient acceptance or notice by the scientific community. In many of your contributions you have referred to the material you are writing as a "book", which would seem to indicate that it doesn't fit the goals of our particular project. Note that our scope also applies to the pages people create in their own user space or sandbox; generally speaking, these cannot be used to host literature that isn't ultimately intended for publication as a public-facing encyclopedia article.

It would help us greatly if you could tell us exactly what sort of material you wish to write—in terms not only of the subject matter but of the writing genre and target audience. If it isn't a good match for Wikipedia, we can help you find a more appropriate venue for its publication; Wikipedia has a number of sister projects for other types of literature, including books and educational material, which might be very happy to receive your contributions. On the other hand, if it really is encyclopedia articles you want to write, we are happy to provide you with whatever support or resources you need to get your articles into a publishable state. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin,

I have moved the book related material to my Wikibooks user space. Thank you for your corrections, I was confused by the "Create book" tool and some visibility options at Wikipedia. Daviddaved 23:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Determining the genus of a graph" and other issues[edit]

To those concerned with Daviddaved's editing, may I say that I hope the problems will soon be resolved and he will join us in editing again.

To Daviddaved: Your edits have generally not been in accord with the usual Wikipedia editing conventions, and this results in some failures to understand what you're doing. I'll say more about this in coming days.

For now, please look at Determination of the genus of a graph, in its current form. Someone redirected it to genus (mathematics), and I undid that and brought the article into some semblance of conformance with the usual conventions, including some context-setting in the first sentence, and setting the title phrase in bold type. The article is clearly in need of further work, and I've labeled it a "stub" for now. Also, it's an "orphan", i.e. no other articles link to it. That should also get addressed. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it may interest you to know about these two pages, especially the second:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

The second of these two pages is used for general discussion of editing of Wikipedia's many mathematics articles. One may bring up particular articles or more general issues. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You should try to communicate more with others here. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTE

The rules for replacing conductors in series or parallel connection by a single electrically equivalent conductor follow from the equivalence of the Y-Δ or star-mesh transforms.

END OF QUOTE

If you had in mind a more extensive article that would say a lot more than what appears above, you should probably write enough to make that clear before attempting to re-create the article; otherwise it will be misunderstood. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's redirected the page, so I've created this user-space draft: user:daviddaved/Determination of the genus of a graph. It is in the form in which I left it while it was in the article space. If it can be developed further into a complete article, then it should be moved back into the article space. After that's done, its edit history can get restored, showing you as the initial author. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

basic definitions and background[edit]

I've created a user-space draft titled User:Daviddaved/Basic_definitions_and_background, simply copying from the article you created with that title. With further editing, this might develop into a suitable Wikipedia article, but it's not ready yet. In particular:

"Basic definitions and background" is not a suitable article title. The title should give some impression of what the article is about.
"We will start with definitions and overview of the main mathematical objects that are involved in the inverse problems of our interest." is not a suitable opening sentence, again because it does not set any initial context, nor say what the article is about.

If you edit it further to the point where it is suitable to be an article, then it can be moved to the article space. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effective resistances and Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator[edit]

I've created a userspace draft called User:Daviddaved/Effective resistances and Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator. With further work, this might become something suitable as an article. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access restored[edit]

Daviddavid, I've temporary restored your talk page access. Some of the mathematically inclined editors see that there is some merit in your work but it is very far in style from what is required in wikipedia. Your use of the talk page also falls short of what we normally expect. If you can respond to the points by Psychonaut and Michael Hardy then we can move forward. Do not at this point post an unblock request.

One way forward might be to only allow you to edit userspace drafts and work with other editors to bring them to wikipedia standards. --Salix (talk): 06:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely he should be able to edit userspace drafts. Is that something he currently cannot do? If so, we should change that immediately.

I wonder about the propriety of seeming to order him not to post an unblock request. Blocked users are supposed to be able to do that, aren't they? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I've ever heard of that before, and if he wants to be able to edit anything other than this talk page he is pretty much going to have to post one. Poor communication is part of the reason for being blocked in the first place. As the blocking admin I would expect to see a well-reasoned unblock request written by this user before I would be ok with any kind of unblocking, even one that included a topic ban limiting this user to their own space. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really surprised that he was denied talk page access at a time when people are trying to persuade him to communicate more. That's just irrational. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking that was a misunderstanding. It looked like he had requested unblock a bunch of times when he was really just reponding to each post with a reply inside an unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fourier coordinates[edit]

The article titled Fourier coordinates appears to be a fragment---a work that will not be comprehensible until much more is added. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

I have unblocked this user.

It appears to me that his unblock request expresses an awareness of the fact that drafts that are so incomplete as to be incomprehensible should remain in the user space and not in the article space. That appears to me to be the cause of the problems. I have read JamesBWatson's reasons for declining the request. JamesBWatson's second sentence appears not to be true. The other issues he deals with are those concerning which this users statements in his request are credible. I met him about 10 years ago when we were both at MIT, and can base some of my judgments on impressions from that time.

To Daviddaved: In things you add to the article space, the initial sentence should do two things:

(1) Make it clear to non-mathematicians that mathematics is what the article is about (in cases where the article is about mathematics), and

(2) Make it clear to everyone who can understand the title what the article's particular topic is.

Things that cannot be understood because they are incomplete should not be in the article space. That doesn't mean everything must be finished, but it means things required for comprehensibility should be there.

Also, as we go forward, you should learn about Wikipedia's conventions as codified in WP:MOS and some other manual pages. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

You are, it seems, posting notes for a book here. Apart from the points made by others above, please note that material posted on Wikipedia is thereby subject to copyright terms which might interfere with your option to republish it in a more conventional way. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors'_rights_and_obligations for details. Warden (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikibooks[edit]

Thank you for all admins for Your help! Most of my stuff was moved by me to open Wikibook "On 2D Inverse Problems" Daviddaved 23:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)