User talk:Anthony Briginshaw

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, Anthony Briginshaw, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Complex number seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your welcome. I have no idea how to reply, so I've assumed that I edit. If you look at my talk page you will see what I was (am) trying to do. Th e page was not a test, but I'd welcome your input.  ____  Anthony Briginshaw (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)  ____ Anthony Briginshaw (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, Anthony. I have taken the liberty of tidying up your response to Deacon Vorbis. I hope that you don't mind. Per Talk page guidelines, your response comes at the bottom of the thread, and it is indented one level more than the post to which you're replying. (Notice that my post also follows these rules.)


 * As you've noticed, your massive edits to Complex number are being reverted. Although Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, I recommend that you start with more modest goals. Try making smaller edits to some other article. Those edits can help you master the wiki syntax and Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable sources. Meanwhile, keep watching the Complex number article. See what changes are made. If you still want to make massive changes, then propose them on the talk page first. Best wishes. Mgnbar (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Mgnbar. Thanks for your message. The point of Wikipedia is clarity and modernity. I propose to sweep away the mystery infecting complex numbers, which is still there in the original article. My method of going straight to the unit circle is not only logical and satisfying, it is intrinsically mathematical. Once you have 0, 1, i, you have the two axes in the Argand diagram. Product gives you i^2 = -1 . Decomposition gives you a+bi. All the time I am pointing out how notation is re-used. It looks like a serious improvement to me. Anthony Briginshaw (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please notice that I've again moved your response to the end of the thread and indented it.
 * I disagree with you, that your treatment of the complex numbers is more clear and modern than the one currently in the article. But my opinion on the substance of your edits is not actually important.
 * What's important on Wikipedia is that we conform to what reliable sources say. In particular, we must avoid original research and writing our personal textbook treatment. Sometimes these policies are counterintuitive, but they are crucial to Wikipedia's success, so please familiarize yourself with them. If you do not, then you will write a bunch of text that will simply be reverted by other editors. And it would be a shame for an enthusiastic editor such as yourself to waste his/her time in that way. Regards. Mgnbar (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Unit circle, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: before you continue editing math-related articles (with proper reliable sources of course), please have a careful look at Help:Displaying a formula. This edit was totally unacceptable, as was this. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * original research? What original research? Are the formulae incorrectly displayed? Anthony Briginshaw (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * Your edits did not specify reliable sources — see wp:verifiable sources. In Wikipedia, it is "no source, no addition" — see wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)