User talk:Gumshoe2

Welcome!

Hi Gumshoe2! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Dennui (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Peter Li has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Peter Li. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Li (May 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Peter Li and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Peter Li, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gumshoe2! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Li (May 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Peter Li and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Peter Li, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis Nirenberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Kohn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grigori Perelman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mikhail Gromov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For being a good editor. ^^ Dennui (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your area of expertise

It's differential geometry, right? Dennui (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am asking because I owe a lot to the late Robert Osserman. Dennui (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Lots of red links:

• Chern–Osserman inequality
• Osserman conjecture in Riemannian geometry
• Osserman manifolds
• Osserman's theorem
• Nirenberg's conjecture

This makes me sad. Dennui (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I would try to create them by myself, but I am just an undergraduate student, these things are too hard for me. Dennui (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Would you be interested in creating those articles? I can help you in other things, about Wikipedia's rules, which I know well. Dennui (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I owe a lot to him because of the three math books he wrote: Two-Dimensional Calculus, A Survey of Minimal Surfaces and Poetry of the Universe: A Mathematical Exploration of the Cosmos. They all made a great impression on me. Dennui (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's differential geometry and analysis. I'm not completely sure what each of those topics is supposed to be; "Osserman theorem" and "Nirenberg conjecture" are a little vague. Osserman's most widely cited papers are:

* Osserman, Robert. On the inequality Δu≥f(u). Pacific J. Math. 7 (1957), 1641–1647.

* Osserman, Robert. The isoperimetric inequality. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 84 (1978), no. 6, 1182–1238.

* Osserman, Robert. Bonnesen-style isoperimetric inequalities. Amer. Math. Monthly 86 (1979), no. 1, 1–29.

In general it's much easier for me to edit pre-existing things than to create new articles from scratch. I'd be happy to follow any requests and make any contributions I can to articles that are already there, it's just too much work for me to create them myself. "Keller-Osserman problem" (following his 1957 paper) could be a good wikipedia article. Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay! I will create the articles, and they will be a mess, but I will wait maybe someone can fix them. This is the Wikipedian spirit, hahaha. ^^ Dennui (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you!

By the way, I am good at creating biographies.. If you want some mathematician covered here, I can try. :D Dennui (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just created this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antoine_Song&action=history Dennui (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've undone an edit of mine, because I never took any course in analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classification_of_discontinuities&diff=prev&oldid=951169724 Dennui (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you think about it? Should I have kept it? Dennui (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the one variable calculus articles on the english wikipedia are REALLY bad... I've tried to improve the one about the chain rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chain_rule&type=revision&diff=950737064&oldid=945984804 19:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennui (talk • contribs)

Ok. We talk later, okay? It was a pleasure to talk to you. ^^ Dennui (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Cya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennui (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have too many opinions on what should be in the intro-undergraduate articles, maybe you should check in on the wikiproject-mathematics main discussion pages.

I'm kind of wary of having too many articles on current young mathematicians... I might suggest articles for Joseph Sampson (Eells-Sampson's paper is one of the most significant in differential geometry) and Doris Fischer-Colbrie (she only wrote three papers but each is significant, especially the one with Schoen). YanYan Li and Wei Ming Ni both definitely deserve articles. Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also Joel Spruck and Basilis Gidas Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hiroshi Fujita, major contributions are two papers with Kato on the Navier-Stokes equations and his paper "On the blowing up of solutions of the Cauchy problem for ut=Δu+u1+α" Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendations. I will see what I can do. Sometimes it's TOO SOON to create an article about someone, because they need to meet PROF ~or GNG~ before I can create. Dennui (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

By the way, Nirenberg's conjecture is this: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/NirenbergsConjecture.html

@David Eppstein: Please, do you know If there is a way to create an article about Hiroshi Fujita? http://www.math.sci.ehime-u.ac.jp/~fujita/index.html https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=43556 I am not finding many sources. :( 189.6.234.6 (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Assistant professors are almost always WP:TOOSOON for new articles, and that would apply to Fujita. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Fujita's work is from the 1960s, dennui linked to an unrelated person of the same name. Fujita has two widely renowned and widely cited papers in PDE, cited over 1000 times. Is this sufficient for an article? Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

He is 91 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.234.6 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in... Dennui (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any available biographical material on Fujita, I only know that his two articles

• Fujita, Hiroshi; Kato, Tosio On the Navier-Stokes initial value problem. I. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 16 (1964), 269–315
• Fujita, Hiroshi On the blowing up of solutions of the Cauchy problem for ut=Δu+u1+α. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. I 13 (1966), 109–124

were well above the norm for impact. As for Nirenberg's conjecture, perhaps it could be nicely subsumed into a wikipedia page for "The Gauss map of a minimal surface". There are probably references in Osserman's survey book on minimal surfaces. Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please help me to make Osserman more famous? I LOVE his calculus book, I learned all I know about multivariate calculus there. Dennui (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to add good expositions, but I don't have any particular interest in amplifying particular mathematicians. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay. ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennui (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Done.
Hiroshi Fujita
We need someone who knows Japanese, to expand it from Japanese sources. Dennui (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, I added a section for his contributions. Yoshikazu Giga, who studies PDE, is another person who certainly warrants a page. Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I can keep trying to create them for you, but I need help with one of the following: "My heroes in mathematics are Robert Osserman, Ivan Niven, Howard Levi, Serge Lang and Vladimir Arnold."

DEAL? Dennui (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. I only want to improve some mathematical expositions on here, and I'm happy to do it for any page I can. What do you want me to do with those pages? Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

creating Levi's reduction process, expanding Topological Galois theory, creating Nirenberg's conjecture... That's what I want. Things like that. ^^ Dennui (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help but I'm just not familiar with these topics :( Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

GREAT!!! As we say in Portuguese: "combinado!" (it's arranged then). No problem not being familiar, if you make some mistakes someone will correct them. I will start another of your requests immediately. Dennui (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true, many mistakes are left on here for a long time, and even on high-traffic pages. I'll only write on things I have some personal expertise in. If you'd like, I could write a good section for Osserman's page surveying his major mathematical contributions.Gumshoe2 (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I accept your offer. It's fair. Dennui (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The next one to have an article here covering him will be: . . . Joel Spruck!!! Just wait, I need to drink some coffee. Dennui (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Done... I will edit more later, my mother needs help now. Dennui (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm done with that article. I don't understand the math. I am just an undergraduate student and english is not my native language you know... Dennui (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert Osserman

Thank you very much for your contribution @ Robert Osserman article. Really appreciated. Thanks a lot. ^^ Dennui (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

btw, i forgot Jerry Kazdan in my list of heroes... his calculus textbook is amazing too, with a lot of basic linear algebra that is useful for calculus. Dennui (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Needham's Visual Differential Geometry

Hi, Gumshoe2. Sorry to take your time again. I will be creating the other biographies later today. I just wanted to ask your opinion on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tristan_Needham&type=revision&diff=966375181&oldid=949283418 Would it be a good idea to preorder it? Dennui (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it, sorry Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I think I will buy it, it looks good. Dennui (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Btw, I will create the articles "como combinado", but not today, because I am not feeling well today, okay? Dennui (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course! All the names I gave were just suggestions. No pressure to do any of them Gumshoe2 (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Basilis Gidas

One more.. :) Dennui (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I will create the others tomorrow. Dennui (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Classification of discontinuities

Hi! Is this information correct:?

"Intuitively, a function is continuous if (and only if) it has no breaks, jumps, vertical asymptotes, or wild oscillations." Dennui (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

do you think it would be a good idea to ask this one at mathstackexchange too? Dennui (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

done: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3749657/wikipedia-classification-of-discontinuities

My undergraduate calculus 2 question

Hi. My professor got covid and can't answer my questions. Could you help me? Dennui (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I will make the question but i will understand if you don't have time or disposition to answer. ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennui (talk • contribs) 08:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

i wanted to understand what it means that thr tangent line is the best linear approximation to the graph of a differentiable function at the point of tangency

I've looked in several books and I don't understand anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennui (talk • contribs) 08:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I recommend https://math.stackexchange.com, it's a great place to ask questions on any level Gumshoe2 (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thannks! I will just complete the question:

where I wrote "linear approximation" read "affine approximation" ... I saw that they don’t use this much, but I thought about like the parabola and the tangent at the point (0,0) which is the x axis ... like how do i prove it is the best approximation? it's obvious but i want a proof

i will ask there... just need to polish my english. thanks Dennui (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

okay, i created a profile there... Dennui (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3749608/the-tangent-line-is-the-best-linear-approximation-to-the-graph-of-a-differenti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennui (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Man, THANK YOU for the recommendation, that website is amazing, what an amazing community!

Do you like puzzles?

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennui (talk • contribs) 15:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/99790/cryptography-puzzle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennui (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

They're not an interest of mine. Glad you're enjoying the stackexchanges. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It's an amazing place! Thanks for the rec. ^^ Dennui (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/99795/why-did-the-electrical-engineer-make-many-phone-calls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennui (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I will create the others articles today

Is there any other mathematician you would like to be covered here? Dennui (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't think of any others offhand Gumshoe2 (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What about Charles Francis Doran? Dennui (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

His h-index is 21. It sounds enough for WP:PROF. Dennui (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: What is your opinion on this? Dennui (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe TOOSOON, the guy is young. Dennui (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not in Doran’s field but I’m not aware of particularly noteworthy achievements that go above the norm for a “good researcher”. I wouldn’t be able to contribute anything to his page Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Doran looks like a successful full professor but nothing stands out beyond that to justify creating an article for him. Which criterion of WP:PROF do you think he passes? The usual one for most academics is #C1 but that's very difficult in mathematics because its citation counts tend to be low and Doran's are too low for that to work. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Doris Helga Fischer-Colbrie

Please help me:

Doris Helga Fischer-Colbrie is a mathematician.

Education: Univ Calif, Berkeley Ph.D., 1978 member IAS supervision H. Blaine (Herbert) Lawson, Jr.

born in Vienna, Austria

married Richard Schoen, had two children

main pub:

Fischer‐Colbrie, Doris, and Richard Schoen. "The structure of complete stable minimal surfaces in 3‐manifolds of non‐negative scalar curvature." Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 33.2 (1980): 199-211.

Try this:

Doris Fischer-Colbrie is a ceramic artist and former mathematician. She received her Ph.D. in mathematics in 1978 from Universiy of California at Berkeley, where her advisor was H. Blaine Lawson.

Many of her contributions to the theory of minimal surfaces are now considered foundational to the field. In particular, her collaboration with Richard Schoen is a landmark contribution to the interaction of stable minimal surfaces with nonnegative scalar curvature. A particular result, also obtained by Manfredo do Carmo and Chiakuei Peng, is that the only complete stable minimal surfaces in ℝ³ are planes. Her work on unstable minimal surfaces gave the basic tools by which to relate the assumption of finite index to conditions on stable subdomains and total curvature.

After positions at Columbia University and San Diego State University, Fischer-Colbrie left academia to become a ceramic artist. She is married to Schoen, with whom she has two children.

Publication list

• Fischer-Colbrie, D. Some rigidity theorems for minimal submanifolds of the sphere. Acta Math. 145 (1980), no. 1-2, 29–46.
• Fischer-Colbrie, Doris; Schoen, Richard. The structure of complete stable minimal surfaces in 3-manifolds of nonnegative scalar curvature. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 33 (1980), no. 2, 199–211.
• Fischer-Colbrie, D. On complete minimal surfaces with finite Morse index in three-manifolds. Invent. Math. 82 (1985), no. 1, 121–132.

Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I will create the article the same way you told me... Thank you again, professor. 189.6.237.147 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Doris_Fischer-Colbrie Could you move it to the main space? Don't wait for the idiot reviewers... Dennui II (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I will do that, because I believe in the main rule: IGNOREALLRULES!!!! Courage!!!! Dennui II (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. This is my last edit, because they deleted Arnold Mathematical Journal when I created it. I will never pardon the English Wikipedia. They deleted my work. MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Arnold Mathematical Journal has never actually been deleted. You created it in April 2015, and then redirected it to Vladimir Arnold yourself on the same day, but that redirection is not a deletion. It was created as a draft again by someone else in February 2019, and the draft was moved into article space on top of your old redirect in September 2019, but although that move involved a technical deletion of a redirect, it was not deletion of article content. So what are you talking about? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I remember it now. It is exactly as you described. I lost my memories due to an accident. MathKeduor7 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Btw, changing the subject... Let's convince R.e.b. to come back? MathKeduor7 (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI2miIBS5-s MathKeduor7 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shing-Tung Yau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mirror symmetry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Wei Ming Ni

... สุนัขที่ดี (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gauss–Codazzi equations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tautology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kefeng Liu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mirror symmetry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Tian Gang

added links pointing to Homology and Mikhail Gromov

John Lott (mathematician)

added a link pointing to Mikhail Gromov

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Differentiable manifold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complex structure.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Unsolicited advice: you are never going to get anyone to address the conduct issues if you do not restrain yourself from discussing the content issues there. You are not obligated to respond to every single thing everyone says, and ANI threads that become long walls of text become impossible to assess. --JBL (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I’ll take it into account. If it doesn’t go anywhere would it be bad form to repost it in a condensed form? I just want the problem to be taken care of Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, there are currently two overlapping discussions open at ANI; I would certainly not repost anything as long as they are both open. I would counsel patience: no one is going to be harmed if this takes an extra week to sort out, and if the article gets worse then one can always go back to an earlier version.
My expertise is far from differential geometry, but it seems to me like there's a pretty clear consensus broadly for your position. I don't know why the other editor is being so difficult about it, and why in particular they seem so impervious to recognizing the merits of other points of view. It's easy to see why this is frustrating, but it's a very non-urgent kind of frustrating. --JBL (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. I didn't realize the previous thread was still considered open, it seemed like the outside viewers had moved on from it. I'll wait it out. Thanks for posting here. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Often threads at ANI will drag on for a bit before being closed. I wouldn't worry unless it actually gets archived (= removed from the page). I will leave a comment there as well. Happy editing! --JBL (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. At the moment I'd like this to focus more on a possible process to follow rather than the actual dispute. --Salix alba (talk): 16:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harold Rosenberg (mathematician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complex structure.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gumshoe2

I noticed you'd used an automated robot to add a wikiproject tag to an article talk page. I'd like to be able to use this myself, but am having trouble finding the right page to access the bot. Could you give a hand with this please? Many thanks. Berek (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

On a draft page I click through “how to improve the chance of a speedy review” and do it from there. I don’t know how to do it otherwise, sorry Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gumshoe2 - I'll see if I can recreate what you do. Berek (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wei Ming Ni has been accepted

Wei Ming Ni, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You can ignore this, I was reaccepting the draft to fix the templates on both the page itself and the talk page. They should all be correct now. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

C. Robin Graham moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, C. Robin Graham, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As a fellow of the AMS he satisfies WP:PROF#C3, no? In the past David Eppstein (talk · contribs) has confirmed this as a good criteria Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, since you brought this to my attention, I think it's time to escalate John B123's repeated and unapologetic premature draftification. Thanks for the ping. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued pattern of premature draftification by John B123. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reilly formula (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sam-2727 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reilly formula and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Reilly formula, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sam-2727 (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Reilly formula

Hello, Gumshoe2. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Reilly formula, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Reilly formula has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Reilly formula. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terence Tao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luis Vega.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your text about the sphere theorem is quite unbalanced. You mention various related works, but you did so in a rather selective way, playing up some contributions and downplaying others. 1.) Nguyen's contribution came much later than the Brendle-Schoen proof. Just look at the publication date. 2.) You mentioned Ben Andrews, even though he played no role whatsoever in the proof of the sphere theorem. 3.) You referred to Bohm-Wilking's work as "novel", but you did not refer to other work in that way. 4.) You did not mention Micallef-Moore's contribution. They introduced the concept of positive isotropic curvature in the first place. Without it, the proof of the sphere theorem would not have been possible. 5.) You did not mention Hamilton with one word, even though Hamilton's ideas underpin every single piece of work in that area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhail234 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

1.) Nguyen's independent work seems to be acknowledged in Brendle and Schoen's very article, from their very first arxiv post in 2007. So the publication date is misleading. 2.) That's fair, I only thought it would be helpful for identification since Huy Nguyen is a common name, even in math. I am fine with Andrews' name being removed. 3-4.) Fair points also. 5.) Hamilton occupies the first two sentences of the paragraph, and personally I have the very highest level of respect for him and his work. When writing I considered mentioning his maximum principle and his convergence criterion but couldn't decide how to fit them in concisely.

I will re-edit the page and you can see how you like it. I would recommend that it is better to edit constructively rather than to just remove blocks of text. If you can find a way to cite Hamilton for the relevance of his work, without unbalancing the flow of the text, I would be very happy to see it. Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Re:

It is odd that you insist on writing the history of a problem that you are only superficially familiar with.

On a different note, your article on biharmonic maps is well written. You could contribute a useful article on Dirac harmonic maps or the bosonic string heat flow.

Mikhail234 (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions! Several years ago I studied all of the papers in question here, although I'm not familiar with priority disputes behind them. But regardless of who truly did what first, the key question for this website is what relevant sources say, and every major source I've seen gives equal priority for PIC to Brendle & Schoen and Nguyen. Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis Nirenberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical point.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis Nirenberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Nash.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Connection (vector bundle), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pushforward.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2020

You are currently edit-warring on wikipedia with unexplained reckless edits. If you continue removing WP:RSs in this way, you are likely to be blocked. Mathsci (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Engaging (or not) with MathSci

In many cases it seems impossible. (At least, I routinely struggle to find a connection between what they write and what everyone else in a discussion is talking about.) I don't think telling them to e.g. "collect their thoughts" is likely to be fruitful; I would suggest just ignoring the incomprehensible bits. --JBL (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, it is good to know I’m not the only one to struggle. But as you say, it is a consistent problem and so I think it is good to point it out, as politely and briefly as possible. He makes editing of pages on his watchlist very difficult, and his incoherence on the talk pages is a main part of it. So I do not think it is good to leave it unremarked on. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It hasn't always been thus. I think this may be related. --JBL (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That is sad to see. But it remains that he makes editing extremely difficult, given that his strange and unresponsive commentary on talk pages is deeply related to editing activity. Ever since difficulties with him in 2020, I've consciously avoided editing any page if I see that he has ever made an edit there, no matter how much improvement I think it needs. The one time I gave it a try, one week ago, with fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry, instantly created an unproductive headache. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, thanks for engaging with him on Schwarz triangle function despite this history. Maybe with our combined forces we can push past the issues with that article. Apocheir (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will help however I can. From what I can see, I agree with you on what should be done. Also, for the talk page, if you have not dealt with mathsci before, you should be aware that generally he will not acknowledge mistakes that he has made, and his only response to criticism is to deflect with long and essentially contentless responses. Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

25 February 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Schwarz triangle tessellation, you may be blocked from editing. The title of the article has changed completely and its lede completely rewritten, pending major changes to the article which might take a few days. The "in-use" tag for major changes has been ignored by the user, contrary to the rubric. It appears that the user is doing their utmost to discourage edits to this article. Mathsci (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My disruptive edits [1] and [2]? Haha, ok. Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Complex lamellar vector field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rational mechanics.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Undefined references

Hi, in this edit you introduced references to "Folland" and "Rudin" but did not define them. This adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and means it is impossible for anyone reading the article to look up your references. If you could fix this problem that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out, it's been fixed now Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Berger's inequality for Einstein manifolds

Dear Gumshoe,

Just a heads-up that I redirected the page you PROD'ded and added a mention at Hitchin–Thorpe inequality. If you disagree with that, feel free to revert, as it is not really my field of expertise. Felix QW (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't understand well the choices between redirecting and deleting, so this is perfectly fine by me. In the sentence you added, I've removed reference to nomenclature "Berger's inequality" since it does not seem to actually be known by this. Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Felix QW (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Solutions to the viscid and incompressible Navier Stokes

Hi, The Navier-Stokes d.e. has been solved

I did observe that you removed my peer-reviewed reviewed by a well established institute, picked-up (republished) by the NASA, the harvard university and many other relevant web-sites and subjectively denoted as irrelevant and unverified. This has nothing to do with facts, but pure unsupported emotions by your side.

Why can i do not tell people that i have solved the most important open problem of physics?? It is a fact, and you do not have to see that as self-promoting because it is already been peer-reviewed by a well established insitute for physics. The growkudo.com website does bear my name, but i did not publish that!

So I just humblebly plead to you not put my name in a negative perspective in public without factual reasons. At this point i do not see the necessity to take legal steps against you.

But if you persist putting my name in a negative perspective i will reconsider that. Just do absorb the fact the Navier Stokes differential equation have been solved.

When i am acquainted with the Latex scripts used by Wikipedia better, i will setup an article-text better with formulas, figures and the like, by now only the updated comments and the peer-reviewed references.

Kind regards,

/rensley Reng meulens (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, please take your comments here. Users there will be better able to help you understand what content belongs on this wiki website. Gumshoe2 (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

References

About neural network generated imagery

Hi! Was it just your personal opinion that it was an "unambiguously bad edit" in the article about G. Perelman?

I'm a newbie, and I don't really understand when it's really okay to suggest edits. Considering that the ability to edit is there after registration. I'd like to bring it up for discussion, but the last discussion was in 2020. I don't hold out much hope that the discussion will be promptly answered. Ian.donskov (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, my edit summary was somewhat rude; apologies for that. The answer is that computer-generated imagery has no encyclopedic value unless the article in question is about computer-generated imagery or something similar. You are very much free to bring up discussion wherever you like – depending on content, wikiproject math is more active and sometimes more useful than individual article talk pages – but I can almost guarantee you that in this case the consensus will be against such edits. You should also have at least a quick read through these editor help pages: [3] and [4]. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, apology accepted :) thanks for the tip and articles! Ian.donskov (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Bonnet theorem

Hi Gumshoe2. You added "Spivak 1999, Theorem 2.3" to Bonnet theorem, but need to specify 1999a or 1999b. Could you know me which is correct, or update the reference? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I've commented out the broken ref until it can be fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Eugenio Calabi

On 1 October 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Eugenio Calabi, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 17:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Please consider a Wikipedia:Good article nomination. Schwede66 17:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Newton's method, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Examples.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)