User talk:AneasSu

Recent edits on Plancherel theorem

Regarding your recent edits on the Plancherel theorem article. I've reverted the edits for a reason: It clearly violates MOS:LAYOUT.

In future, please be so kind to actually look at the reason for the revert and/or start a discussion on the talk page if you disagree.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have reverted your edits. I've clearly stated that your "proof" lacked verifiability. Yet, for the second time you fully ignore the reason for the revert and copy/paste your original statement.

If you disagree with the revert, then please address the issue on the relevant talk pages.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every theorem used in the proof can be found in other Wikipedia pages, there is no need for extra source AneasSu (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:V

Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.
Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.

and WP:NOR

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. ... This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

Putting together a couple wiki hyperlinks and presenting it as "proof" constitutes original research. If you want to introduce a "Proof" section, please do so based on verifiable sources.

Also, please don't start edit warring WP:EW while the dispute is being discussed.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stating the reason for a well-known mathematical conclusion is not an original research.

In the field of math, original researches find conclusions for Unsolved Problems.

Mathematical facts depend only on logics, the logic itself is verifiable. AneasSu (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to lecture me about the field of mathematics, let's just focus on the issue at hand.

You present your version of the proof without providing any verifiable references. What you wrote down might be completely correct and it might also be completely obvious to you, but that doesn't absolve you from adhering to Wikipedia's core content policies.

If you can provide proper references, this whole issue is resolved.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't start edit warring other pages about mathematical theorems while the dispute is being discussed. AneasSu (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify Roffaduft (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mean value theorem

This is an example, the proofs in the page cite no articles or textbooks.

Stating the reason for a well-known conclusion is not an original research. AneasSu (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what issue you are addressing here. There are loads of articles that lack inline citations, that doesn't mean that you don't have to provide references when making edits. Roffaduft (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A logical statement needs no citation. Stop dictating over what is verifiable or not. AneasSu (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Your recent editing history at Plancherel theorem shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Roffaduft (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Roffaduft (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Thanks for your edits on Elliptic partial differential equation, extra material has definitely been needed there. I would just suggest that for style reasons it's better not to put the references inline, e.g. instead of "A more general definition with elliptic operators is given by Lawrence C.Evans (2010):" you could just say "There is also a more general definition of elliptic operators:". Having the reference information confined to <ref> tags is sufficient and reads better. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggestion, I have already changed the reference format AneasSu (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]