User talk:Anita5192/Archive 2

Edit reverted on Tangent space article
Hello, I recently had an edit reverted and was warned for sockpuppetry. I don't understand how the sockpuppetry warning occured since I have only (to my knowledge) edited from the SFeesh account.

More importantly, I think that my edit was mathematically correct. Specifically, in the section Definition via derivations, a derivation at a point $$x$$ in a smooth manifold $$M$$ is defined to be a linear map $$D \colon C^\infty(M) \to \mathbb{R} $$ satisfying the Leibniz rule $$ D(fg) = D(f) \cdot g + f \cdot D(g)$$. My main issue with this is that the definition needs to involve the point $$x$$, but here it does not. Moreover, the expression $$ D(f) \cdot g + f \cdot D(g)$$ must be a real number by definition, and as written it is not.

The definition is fine, but the Leibniz rule needs to be $$ D(fg) = D(f) \cdot g(x) + f(x) \cdot D(g)$$ to make things correct (since $$ f(x), g(x) $$ are real numbers by definition). If you do not believe me, you can read the definition of a derivation at a point in the book Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by John M. Lee, near the beginning of chapter 3 on tangent vectors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFeesh (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * On closer inspection, I think what you are saying is correct, so I put the text back the way it was. I warned you about sockpuppetry because I saw the same edit from three different accounts. In the future when you post a message on a talk page like this one, please sign your post with four tildes, as noted on your talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Triangular numbers
Hey :) I see you've reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangular_number&oldid=prev&diff=1045053331

You wrote "relevance". I've added this since 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ is the article about triangular numbers when n goes to infinite. It seems like a relevant "see also", could you please explain why not add it?

Tal Galili (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I see someone else already reverted your revert and explained. Tal Galili (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Revert of edit in Boolean ring
Hi Anita5192. I see that you reverted my edit to streamline the header portion of the Boolean ring article. As we will both agree, the definition of Boolean ring is a ring where x=x^2 for each element x, in other words a ring for which each element is idempotent (as by definition an idempotent element is one for which x^2 = x). There are already a group of three footnotes ([1],[2],[3]) pointing to sources referring to that definition. The second part mentioning idempotents is just a rephrasing for the benefit of the reader, there is no need to have footnotes ([4],[5]) referencing sources at that point. If anything, we should have all footnotes referencing the definition grouped together with [1],[2],[3]. Why do you want to have footnotes to the rephrasing via idempotents? PatrickR2 (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit because your edit summary did not justify the deletion of the citations. I agree that it would be better to have all footnotes referencing the definition grouped together with [1],[2],[3] after both statements. I have already made the edit. Happy editing!—Anita5192 (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edit. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Prime factorization of smallest 9-perfect number
The prime factorization of the smallest 9-perfect number is

2104 × 343 × 59 × 712 × 116 × 134 × 17 × 194 × 232 × 29 × 314 × 373 × 412 × 432 × 472 × 53 × 59 × 61 × 67 × 713 × 73 × 792 × 83 × 89 × 97 × 1032 × 107 × 127 × 1312 × 1372 × 1512 × 191 × 211 × 241 × 331 × 337 × 431 × 521 × 547 × 631 × 661 × 683 × 709 × 911 × 1093 × 1301 × 1723 × 2521 × 3067 × 3571 × 3851 × 5501 × 6829 × 6911 × 8647 × 17293 × 17351 × 29191 × 30941 × 45319 × 106681 × 110563 × 122921 × 152041 × 570461 × 16148168401.

By looking at its prime factorization, what can you say about it? Fomfeider (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You should probably ask this at Talk:Integer factorization instead of here.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You can talk about it here, Anita5192. Fomfeider (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

11-perfect numbers
Can you please try to find an 11-perfect number for me?

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Multiply_perfect_number. You can discuss about finding an 11-perfect number there. Fomfeider (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comedy Revert
Thanks Anita5192 for your reversion of my edit in Comedy. I was aware of the existence of the link earlier on in the article. The additional link was only for those people who would cursorily read the article and then move on to "See also" links to get associated information. In retrospect, I feel I should have let such people suffer for their lack of detailed reading of each and every article, before moving on to "See also" section. Thanks again. Anil1956 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Blunt undoing at screenwriting
Please do not undo an entire edit of otherwise constructive changes (e.g. my addition of an  ) if you only take issue with some of the changes as you did here.

In regard to the other edits, nb WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization...only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.") and that sources for these terms do not consistently capitalize these terms — one does not and one (with generally poor copy editing) does. Also, nb WP:HYPHEN ("Hyphens indicate conjunction in...compounds that are hyphenated when used attributively...") and WP:MOSBOLD ("The...use of boldface is to highlight...the first occurrence of a term ...that redirects to the article or one of its subsections...") Generally, Wikipedia has a higher standard of copy than the blogs and the like that are cited in the article, and the guidelines I mentioned here are an important part of this.

Thanks. —  AjaxSmack 16:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Freundliche Grüße zu Ihnen und danke sehr für die Barnstar! Many confuse "i.e." (that is) with "e.g." (for example), so this is a common mistake. Happy editing! —Anita5192 (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Revert at Euclidean domain
> sourced in the text you just deleted

I got "a first course in abstract algebra" 7th edition in front of me, and I can't find where this stuff is mentioned. Can you help me? Dlesos (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The Euclidean domain article refers to the fifth edition. I have the second edition, and this material is not in it, so I can't verify it. However, the passage in question defines "algorithmic Euclidean property" as "if there is a division algorithm that for given a and nonzero b produces a quotient q and remainder r with  and either  or f(r) < f(b), then an extended Euclidean algorithm can be defined in terms of this division operation," and links to the extended Euclidean algorithm. Except for not being able to locate this in the seventh edition, what is not clear?—Anita5192 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There should be a source Dlesos (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a source: the fifth edition.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical it is, when it's neither in 1st edition or 7th. Even if I'm wrong, what's the point of a source no one has access to? Dlesos (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Woke article
I moved this discussion to Talk:Woke/Archive 6 because I think that is a more appropriate place for it.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Crime-Free Multi-Housing


The article Crime-Free Multi-Housing has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Does not indicate notability per WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... disco spinster   talk  05:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry...
You must have got there just before me at Crime-Free Multi-Housing and I left the warning. Sorry! Knitsey (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see that as a problem. You simply left a message similar to the one I would have left. Thank you for posting it!


 * Whenever I see someone else has reverted vandalism before I could get to it, I wait a few minutes before posting a warning message, in case the editor who reverted it is about to post something. Happy editing! —Anita5192 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Carl Jung
The University of Zurich knows about this peace concept, and will bring in the references.Philotrio (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Gravity
there is an article on gravity in the antiquity section which describes In India, the mathematician-astronomer Aryabhata first identified gravity to explain why objects are not driven away from the Earth by the centrifugal force of the planet's rotation but i can't find any sources depicting about his claim please remove it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * —Anita5192 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Comedy Revert
Thanks Anita5192 for your reversion of my edit in Comedy. I was aware of the existence of the link earlier on in the article. The additional link was only for those people who would cursorily read the article and then move on to "See also" links to get associated information. In retrospect, I feel I should have let such people suffer for their lack of detailed reading of each and every article, before moving on to "See also" section. Thanks again. Anil1956 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Spaces
Hi Anita. Please don't do this. It has no effect on the rendered HTML, causes watchlist churn, and can provoke emotional responses on the one-or-two-spaces-after-a-period question. --Trovatore (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)