User talk:Wcherowi

Warning Templates

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Fibonacci number: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.

Re: Kepler Fraud

Thanks for revising my edit instead of deleting it. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion

Reverting edit on Euler number page

The formulas which have been deleted came from refereed Math journal. I was thinking of including more information, but you deleted the information I added due COI. The page contains little information compared to what is there in literature. Only researchers in this area can contribute to such pages. Please check for the references in such cases, like the one which is not working on that page, and comes from a non-referred source.

On Wikipedia we place new entries at the bottom of the page (unlike other places on the web) so I took the liberty of moving yours here, I hope you don't mind.

In response let me say that I thought my edit summary was clear, but I can amplify it here. First of all, WP takes a dim view of editors putting up their own papers as references. This conflict of interest is taken very seriously and needs to be avoided to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. Your impartiality is put into question when you placed your new formulas ahead of the traditional well-known examples. Just being published in a refereed journal is not sufficient to determine notability of an addition. Time is needed for the paper to be reviewed and vetted by the mathematical community and the 2019 publication dates make it clear that not enough time has elapsed. If you have the expertise that you claim, you would be more useful to the encyclopedia if you could improve the references used on this page rather than push your own work.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Bill, I am inclined to agree with you here, but haven't had the time to look closely at the edits to see how much was worth saving. I also noticed that today, another brand-new account added a similar section (with the same reference) to alternating permutation; see [1]. --JBL (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Joel. Yes I also spotted that yesterday and suspect that we have a case of sock-puppetry here. I didn't follow up on the original post since he came back with some good edits in the article (but did not take down his own paper) and no other editors backed me up. I am a bit torn about this as the editor seems to have good contributions to make, but does not appear to be willing to abide by our norms. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Derived set (mathematics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disjoint (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) 08:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 13:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your revert of edit about number of smallest asymmetric cubic graphs

I very rarely edit Wikipedia, so I am not deeply familiar with the procedures. The statements I changed were added in 2011 with no citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.201.65.77 They're wrong, see https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3540720/ I do not think it is possible to find any citation for there being 5 such graphs and not 2, but this fact is fairly trivial to verify with modern graph theory software. For example, with Mathematica and gtools/nauty: Select[Import["!geng -d3 -D3 12", "Graph6"], GraphAutomorphismGroup[#] === PermutationGroup[{}] &] (and also try for smaller vertex counts than 12 to see that there are none). My intention was to correct a mistake. Can you help me do this while ensuring that procedures are followed? BarroColorado (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

As is typical on Wikipedia talk pages, new messages go on the bottom of the page (unlike many places on the web), so I took the liberty of moving yours here. I do apologize for reverting your changes, you were in fact correct. But, in my own defense, the edit summary you provided indicated that this was your own work using appropriate graph theory software. This is considered WP:OR since the computations are not trivial ones that can be verified by the majority of our readers. What is needed here is a citation by a reliable source and this was provided by another editor who reverted all my changes. I am glad that this was finally corrected in a way that is acceptable under Wikipedia policies. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for an apology. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia reliable! I could not find a reference myself, I could only verify it with software. In fact, I found the mistake while testing graph theory software. I'm glad that someone found a reference. BarroColorado (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll

Please explain why you are any more qualified than I am to judge the reliability of a biographical source on Lewis Carroll. One only needs to use their eyes to see that the photos in question are fake, anyway.