User talk:272727

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Ericdn (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

August 2011
Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your latest edit. I would not do that, if you posted an explanation (even the one I disagree with) but you did not.
 * Could you please explain why the footnote


 * "Perelman was awarded a Fields Medal for his proof of the Poincaré conjecture, but he declined the Medal."


 * belongs the page while the footnote


 * "Perelman was awarded an EMS prize for his proof of the Soul theorem, but he declined the prize."


 * does not? Do you have any information that suggests that only one of the two is correct?
 * Please, give then a reference.
 * Or do you believe that one comment is important and the other is not?
 * Then, please explain. In my opinion, both are irrelevant for the purposes of the page.
 * However, if one is kept then the other must be kept too since readers may incorrectly decide that one of the prizes was accepted.


 * Also, please, explain the rational for your edits next time you do them. I hope you understand that statements like "Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" do not count as a legitimate explanation. The comment "yes, each of these mathematicians won a prize for some proof, but this is not the place to explain it in detail" misses the point since it equally applies to both footnotes. Moreover, the above argument only applies to the first half of each of the footnotes. I see three reasonable options: keeping both footnotes, keeping neither, or removing the names of the theorems from both. In the latter case one footnote will suffice since it can be used twice. If you have an explanation why neither of those is acceptable please give it and I will be happy to concur as long as there is some logic in it.
 * I am completely ready to accept that I am missing something about the way the footnotes are going to be perceived. Please, explain. 272727 (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 272727 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, you're realy calling for it. Before this goes any further, please name your source for Perelman declining the 1996 EMS Prize. --bender235 (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What's the problem with the source I cited in the explanation of my change for the Imo participant page at 22:47 on August 25, 2001:

22:47, 25 August 2011 272727 (talk | contribs) (15,148 bytes) (Undid revision 446107614 by Bender235 (talk) Why was my edit reversed? The fact is well known (check, e.g., the biography on http://www.gap-system.org/~history/))

If you have a difficulty finding a particular biography of that site you can directly go directly to

http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Perelman.html

That’s a quotation from that page

“He refused to accept a European Mathematical Society prize in 1996”

It appears that you did not even read my explanation for the changes before reverting.

272727 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad form
It's generally considered impolite to restore comments you made on another editor's talk page if they delete them--deletion implies that they read what you wrote, and it's best to leave it alone after the deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not think about that and will revert. Is it a good form to post my comment I made on someone's else page to my page after deleting it on that page? 13:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any guideline or policy against it, but there's really no need to do so. You can always access the comment using a diff from the page history, if you need to. My suggestion would be to try to engage in discussion on neutral ground in the case of a dispute, but I have not looked at any of the discussions in this case. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)