User talk:ProfMoustafa

October 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Community,

It is concerning that individuals without a background in number theory, like Serge Batalov, are making uninformed claims about highly specialized topics like Mersenne primes. Given his declaration as a biologist, it is questionable how he is allowed to speak on this subject. His comments are detrimental to knowledge dissemination because he may not fully appreciate the complexity of Mersenne primes and their applications. I ask that Wikipedia take steps to prevent individuals who lack the relevant expertise from blocking accurate, peer-reviewed content.

Furthermore, I hope Wikipedia is committed to supporting diverse contributions from all communities, including Arab and Muslim scholars. My research has been peer-reviewed and published, and it is unfortunate to see it dismissed without thoughtful engagement. Please ensure that Wikipedia remains a platform for advancing knowledge inclusively and without discrimination. ProfMoustafa (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ixfd64,

I did not intend to engage in any edit war, and I respect the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. My goal was to add accurate, well-referenced information to the article. I understand the importance of consensus and am willing to discuss any concerns on the talk page to reach a mutually agreeable version. My intention is only to improve the content, and I look forward to working with the community to ensure that accurate and valuable information is presented.

Kind regards,

Moustafa Ibrahim ProfMoustafa (talk) 19:28, 16 October 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, ProfMoustafa. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Lucas–Lehmer primality test, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you still protect Serge Batalov. He is not specialist in number theory nor in Mersenne number, and he follow a policy to ignor my contribution in Mersenne Numbers. He insulted me also saying I paid money for the journal to publish which is not true ?! He insulted me and the journal. After he said what he said publically, I can keep silent. So, I would keep update the page as I kept silent this would spread doubt about my research. He also have connections in the Mersenne Prime Forum. You should advise him stop blocking the knowledge of the public and the works of Arab researchers. ProfMoustafa (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After he said what he said publically, I can NOT keep silent. Do you want to keep silent ?

Do you want block the publick know my contribution. Do you follow a policy to publish work of "certain" people and ignor Arab contributions !!

Be honest ! ProfMoustafa (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of the article or its contents. On Wikipedia, you may not write about yourself. Engaging on the talk page, as you are doing, is the correct way to proceed. If you get stuck there, I recommend posting a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, with a link to Talk:Lucas–Lehmer primality test. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can send my result to experts from any top university (but promis me not to say it is for a Arabian researcher). ProfMoustafa (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if you do not me publish it, you are more than welcom to publish it yourself

to avoid CONFLICT OF INTEREST !

The problem is not what you cliam "Conflict of interest".

You know the reall problem and you know I know. So be please try to be honest ProfMoustafa (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair that your Editor of Wikipedia publish this publically in Mersenne Prime Forum Page today this :

Batalov

Mar 2008

10993 #36

2024-10-16, 20:55

So, after spamming our forum, the esteemed author decided to spam Wikipedia!

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lucas%...primality_test

shows that multiple people removed the self-promotional section repeatedly.

Why? Because this material has nothing to do with Lucas–Lehmer primality test!

Several lessons:

- Don't confuse Wikipedia (encyclopedia) with a journal!

- Don't confuse criticism with (quote) "personal attacks" - it is your material that is criticized, not you. No one even knows who you are

- (quote) "It is concerning that individuals without a background in number theory, like Serge Batalov, are making uninformed claims about highly specialized topics like Mersenne primes. Given his declaration as a biologist, it is questionable how he is allowed to speak on this subject. His comments are detrimental to knowledge dissemination because he may not fully appreciate the complexity of Mersenne primes and their applications. I ask that Wikipedia take steps to prevent individuals who lack the relevant expertise from blocking accurate, peer-reviewed content."

https://www.mersenneforum.org/node/22736/page2#post1056729

And now you advise me to stop?? ProfMoustafa (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeking promoting myself

I just shar the public about certain contribution

Yes i done this valid published contribution

and like share it with public - not to get insulted from your editors !! ProfMoustafa (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia SHOULD NOT allow none experts in Mersenne prime talk about Number theory.

This damage the reall progress that we make becuase simply such not expert editors block our work for advantage of some body. ProfMoustafa (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not speak on behalf of Arabs, nor will I defend them, for who am I to do so? I simply discovered a new relationship in number theory and wanted to share it with the world, just as anyone else would when they uncover something new.

What I found to be astonishing is how Wikipedia, a platform meant to be the pinnacle of public knowledge and information, allows highly specialized topics—subjects that only true experts in the field understand—to be edited by individuals with little or no expertise in that area. And when questioned about why a theoretical equation I discovered regarding the Lucas-Lehmer test for Mersenne primes was removed, the response I received was, ‘I’m not an expert in Mersenne primes.’

So it appears the unwritten rule here is that Wikipedia's knowledge base is now shaped by non-experts.

It’s both amusing and sad to witness this type of global knowledge suppression. Instead of enriching the public with new discoveries, policies or actions like these stifle genuine contributions.

Honestly, I have neither the time nor the desire to fight against this global form of intellectual corruption. This may very well be my final message here.

I don’t want an award, I don’t seek recognition. I merely wanted to share a new, accurate piece of information about Mersenne primes—information that most people don't even know exists.

And that's it.

Good luck. ProfMoustafa (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]