User talk:Danko Georgiev/Archive1

Lazy editor (continued)
The discussion you started on my talk page now appears on the archives of my talk page. You requested there a comment on your competence in published mathematical work. You also suggested that the use of wikipedia pseudonyms by professional academic editors was cowardly and made some remarks about "pseudo-Ph.D.'s". I shall reply here.

Unlike you, I have never been banned from editing wikipedia articles. From wikipedia discussion pages it can be seen that you apparently reproduced somebody else's diagram in a recent article in Progress in Physics. You avoided stating that this diagram was not created wholly by you; later you justified yourself by making remarks about GFDL and minor modifications made by you. Isn't this plagiarism? Unruh's rebuttal of your article in Progress in Physics also accuses you of misrepresenting his views; he even suggests towards the end of his article that a key step in your mathematical argument is wrong, because you apparently did not appear to understand the role of complex inner product spaces in quantum mechanics. These published objections of Unruh seem correct to me and seem to question your mathematical competence.

Please try if possible to get over your irritation that people with genuine Ph.D.'s are participating in the wikipedia encyclopedia. (If you can't, why not get your favourite internet university to upgrade your MD to a Ph.D.?) Finally, although I post anomymously I am in fact also referred to in wikipedia mathematics articles under my real name. Unlike you, I am not responsable for my own name appearing and the scientific work referred to has no controversy attached to it. --Mathsci 06:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found another example of your incompetence at editing mathematical wikipedia articles. You have attempted to modify the article on Andrica's conjecture by copying and pasting most of what appears in the corresponding MathWorld article http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AndricasConjecture.html Whole sentence structures and diagrams have been lifted, which suggests that you have seriously infringed the copyright http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/terms.html Did you obtain permission from Wolfram, Inc publicly to redistribute their material on wikipedia? The only originality in your editing seems to be your systematic misuse of the indefinite and definite articles in english.

MathWorld: A generalization of Andrica's conjecture considers the equation p_(n+1)^x-p_n^x=1 and solves for x. The smallest such x is  x approx 0.567148 (Sloane's A038458), known as the Smarandache constant, which occurs for p_n=113 and p_(n+1)=127 (Perez).

User: Danko Georgiev MD: Generalization of Andrica's conjecture considers the equation $$p_{n+1}^x-p_n^x=1$$ where $$p_n$$ is the nth prime number and solves for x. The smallest such x is $$x \approx 0.567148$$ (sequence A038458 in OEIS), known as the Smarandache constant, which occurs for $$p_n = 113$$ and $$p_{n + 1} = 127$$.


 * The MathWorld article does not correctly state Smarandache's generalisation of Andrica's conjecture which appears here http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/conjprim.txt on Smarandache's web site at UNM-Gallup. Thus if $$x$$ is the Smarandache constant defined as the solution of $$127^x - 113^x=1$$, the conjecture states that $$p_{n+1}^y - p_{n}^y <1$$ if $$y<x$$. If you copy and paste without any understanding of the mathematics, it is hardly surprising that you did not realise that you were copying an error. Go and check the originals. Please also correct your addition to the wikipedia entry on Andrica's conjecture. Otherwise it should be removed because at present no generalisation of the conjecture is stated. It might also be an idea if you stopped editing wikipedia articles on mathematics if all you can do is reproduce this kind of meaningless error. --Mathsci 07:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My reply is archived somewhere at Mathsci talk pages, archive 2. What Mathsci presents here is FLAWED conjecture, which is NOT generalized Andrica's conjecture. See detailed reply by me HERE! Danko Georgiev MD 08:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing discussion pages
No matter how much it irritates you, you are breaking the wikipedia rules when you edit other wikipedia editors' contributions from your talk page. I will report you if you continue to edit talk pages in this way. Please read the wikipedia rules if you are in any doubt. --Mathsci 21:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the warning! I will leave the curent talk page as is, I have moved some material to my user page :-)) Danko Georgiev MD 02:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you now seem to understand a little better what the purpose of your talk page is. Thank you for transferring part of the content (eg your credo and the material on chess) to your user page. --Mathsci 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved the content to your talk page, I have not blanked the discussion. As you are violating numeorus Wikipedia policies, I think it is more appropriate to resolve the problem you have with my editing at your talk page. Danko Georgiev MD 01:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mathematica plots
In regard your dispute with mathsci; I haven't investigated fully, but I question your inclusion of Mathematica plots which you generated in the article Andrica's conjecture. The footnote, with a link pointing from the article to your user page, is clearly improper, but I believe the plots may violate our WP:OR rules unless they were published in some "real" journal. My proof, in a Usenet post, of the classification theorem for all 3-dimensional algebras over the reals is likewise not usable as a source here. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Arthur, please note that there is no requirement for simple mathematical images to be published anywhere, and I give you example with 3 randomly chosen user-created images, which are almost 100% NOT published in journal.

Image:Mug_and_Torus_morph.gif Image:7_bridgesID.png Image:Cubicpoly.svg
 * In the article topology the following animation even is top rated for Wikipedia:
 * In the article Seven Bridges of Königsberg the images are certainly not published in journal, despite in some recreational mathbook one may find the text of the posed problems
 * And in Graph of a function the cubic plot is also user-created
 * So if you say that possibly some math textbook in the world has published exactly the graph of the mentioned cubic equation, then at 100% the Andrica's function is plotted in MathWorld and the graph is identical to mine. The code for the function is however created by me, so I am in the right to release it under any license I like, so everyone can copy - paste in Mathematica notebook, and then push "shift+enter" to produce the plot. Let us not be "greater saint than the Pope", I fully agree with you that no links to my user page are needed, I did this only as a reaction to User:Mathsci plagiarism charges. Please talk with him, I work professionally mathematics, and my name is in the list of authors in AMS, with Erdos number 4, which at least is some evidence that I am a little more than "self-proclaimed amateur" according to User:Mathsci. p.s. I have never believed in the academic degrees as relevant criterion to judge one's work, and my academic degrees are clearly indicated even in my user nickname, I am still PhD student, so I have not yet obtained this second degree. Danko Georgiev MD 02:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: if I release the same plots at PlanetMath will it be considered as OR? Concerning mathematics I have very deep suspicion that OR policy is abused. In discussions with User:Afshar I already expressed my views, which indeed reflect the Wikipedia policy as far as I can remember -- proof of theorem is in the public domain. The plot generation also follows some formal rules which can be checked by any user who understands basics of maths, so creation of simple plots, is also something that in view is in the public domain. The companies who created the plotting software have no copyright rights on the produced graphs with their software. Just thoughts ... Danko Georgiev MD 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tabish Qureshi
Hello fellow editor. The reason I put the notability tag is so that we can discuss the notability of this person, no doubt an intelligent individual. The Wikipedia notability criteria for academics is outlined in Notability criteria for academics. Unfortunately, I don't see any independent sources that refer to him as an expert in the field. Despite the fact that he has consistently been published in numerous famous academic journals for the past 20 years, he is not automatically an expert. I have had several professors at university as well as colleagues of mine in industry that have been publishing for 40+ years in physics journals, but they don't have articles on Wikipedia, because they are not independently confirmed as "experts" by any respected source (perhaps by their colleagues or kids, but those are not "independent" sources). I will leave the tag on the page until you or another editor can provide some independent source that makes the case for this person's notability. By the way, I was born in India, so I hold no prejudice towards notable Indian scholars, even if they remain in India, as long as they meet any of the criteria outlined in Notability criteria for academics. Wikipedia brown 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your reply. I am not however sure that a paper can be found saying "Tabish Qureshi is expert". I have published twice comments on his works on some foundational problems, and I have commented positively what he has done, but then one has to establish whether I am notable ... :-) Well, let others decide the notability of the entry, I vote for keeping it. Danko Georgiev MD 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could supply the year and place of birth for the subject of your biography if by chance they are known to you. --Mathsci 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Florentin Smarandache
Danko Georgiev, please stop attacking, insulting and threatening other users as you did on Talk:Florentin Smarandache ("extremely stupid", "brain effort :-))))", "you like to vandalise" etc.). As for "cowards", "identity games" etc.: Anonymous and pseudonymous editing has been an established and accepted practice on Wikipedia since its founding more than six years ago. If you want to change that, you will have to start elsewhere.

I can't see the basis for your accusation that User:Mathsci has a bias against Smarandache. Quite the other way around: You seem to have published several papers in Smarandache's journal Progress in Physics, so one has to assume that your career is not entirely independent of Smarandache's reputation and that you have a vital personal interest in presenting Smarandache in a positive light in this article. Please consider following the advice at Conflict_of_interest (1.). Thank you.

Regards, High on a tree 08:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear User, exactly because MathSci started insulting me with questions "am I ill, or in medication" I have used some of the words quoted by you, but NOT agaisnt Mathsci, I was talking about ME - "I am not idiot" .. etc, etc. Also it seems that user Mathsci himself has complained and continues to SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION!!! The speculation about Smarandache is ridiculuous - I do PhD in molecular pharmacology, and you can check that publishing or not in physical journal has nothing to do with my career, nor is vital for me. Also the fact I work in physics in my free time, all this is for fun, and I participate in heated discussions with various PhDs in physics, but this is NOT vital neither for me, nor for my research. I am tired to be accused by vandals in false things, and one of their huge curiosity is "why I am editing in physics"?? Obviously they think that I must have PhD in physics in order to edit such topics. My reply is - I edit whatever I like, and for example when I enrich the entries on Japanese culture with info and photos nobody asks me if I have PhD to do that. Mathsci reverts my edits on entry Smarandache, and he is the guy who has problems. I think it is not acceptable for spitting over the others in the main articles, and this is what the anonymous Mathsci does. If he had exposed his name, he wouldn't be so brave to spit over Smarandache. I do NOT question the practise for anonymous editing on all topics EXCEPT BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PEOPLE!!!!!!! One cannot spit anonymously over the biography of living person. If you can suggest where i have to post my proposal for changing the Wikipedia rules, I will appreciate that. My thesis is very concrete -- biographies of living people should be immunized for malicious editing from anonymous users. Kind regards, Danko Georgiev MD 10:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sine gordon images
Greetings. You uploaded several animated gifs illustrating the Sine-Gordon equation: Image:Sine gordon 1.gif, Image:Sine gordon 2.gif, Image:Sine gordon 3.gif, Image:Sine gordon 4.gif, Image:Sine gordon 5.gif, Image:Sine gordon 6.gif, Image:Sine gordon 7.gif, Image:Sine gordon 8.gif, and Image:Sine gordon 9.gif.

User:Mathsci alleges that these images are derivative images of the images at this website. I have no idea whether these images were created from scratch by you, or whether you modified those original images to produce your images, as Mathsci alleges. (I don't understand the mathematical material, and I'm not familiar with the abilities of editors which can alter animated gifs.)

If you created these images on your own without altering someone else's work, then there is no problem. If you modified someone else's gifs with an image editor, then there could be a copyright problem. Mathsci has removed the images from the Sine-Gordon equation page, and I have listed these nine images at Possibly_unfree_images. If you could comment there about how the images were created, that could really help us sort this out. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Quadell, please restore my sine-Gordon images released by ME personally, and now I have released them under GFDL, as they are exported from MAPLE by me personally! And they were published in http://cogprints.org/3894/ which is my own paper. By the way there are differences which I have commented with Miroshnichenko himself, conserning the kink and antikinks - on Miroshnichenko's site the ribbon model contains some errors. ALSO I HAVE PERSONALLY PROVIDED THE LINK TO MIROSHNICHENKO'S WEB SITE, so User:Mathsci had NOT discovered anything new that I have not posted! Concerning User:Mathsci he is vandal who has personal issues with me, so please warn him to stop this personal war. If you want I can forward you MAPLE worksheets from where the gifs were exported. Danko Georgiev MD 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at Talk:Xi-Ping Zhu
I saw that you felt that this article should be deleted. If matters to you, you should consider reading up at Articles for deletion about how you can nominate the article for deletion. Cheers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical Incompetence
Please stop editing wikipedia articles beyond your expertise. On your own admission, you have a cynical utilitarian attitude to your current Ph.D. programme. But do not presume to have an expertise in subjects which are completely beyond your declared expertise in molecular pharmacology. This discipline is quite distant from advanced pure mathematics.You might wish to do this to increase your self-esteem, but your mathematical incompetence disqualifies you from editing any mathematical wikipedia pages. You have pretended to be an expert on Ricci flow: since you have had no formal mathematical training, could you kindly explain to us mathematicians why you have done this? Is it because you are an indefatigible TROLL? --Mathsci 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My post at Talk:Xi-Ping Zhu:
 * I shall not use personal offences, although I wish to use such against the vandal Mathsci. First, I have not put the notability tag. Second, I have not pretended to have knowledge in Ricci flow. And last but not least, YES I DO STAND AGAINST UNETHICAL BAHAVIOR -- AN MY QUALIFICATIONS IN ETHICS, BIOMEDICAL ETHICS, AND ETHICS IN SCIENCE ARE AT LEAST MASTER DEGREE, FOR WHICH MATHSCI OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO QUALIFICATION AT ALL. Also Mathsci not only lacks knowledge of basic ethical issues, he is exactly on the contrary highly unmoral individual who lead personal war against me against all Wikipedia rules. And YES MISTER *PRO* -- HAVING PH.D. IN MATHEMATICS DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHT TO MISBEHAVE YOURSELF. I am greatly disgusted by your non-sense posts. I am talking about ethical issues, not about the Ricci flow. p.s. The person who has inserted the notability tag can put it again -- I will support this against Mathsci reverts. Danko Georgiev MD 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You based your comments on a personal uninformed reading of a mathematical paper. This paper was in fact superseded by another paper on the arxiv in December 2006. (A Fields Medallist friend gave me a copy of the article as bedtime reading last Christmas). How can you boast about your superior scientific ethics in these circumstances? Apparently you are still making extremely serious accusations of criminality against Zhu: why then have you seen fit to disregard this very important document?  Is this a value judgement you have made or is it simply your ignorance of the existence of the revised article?  At best this seems ill-judged  and ill-informed. Please stop editing wikipedia articles related to pure mathematics. --Mathsci 07:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unruh's interferometer
Hello Danko Georgiev. The article on Unruh's interferometer that you created in April is being discussed at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You are welcome to add your comments there. EdJohnston 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Invite


Gregbard 07:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on anonymity
(was posted in full, removing as inflammatory --Random832 21:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Mathsci 19:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment This warning has nothing to do with what occurred and is inappropriate and possibly inflammatory. I suggest, Mathsci, that you remove it. KP Botany 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No pesonal information has been posted anywhere by this user. KP Botany 20:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You were warned about this.

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.

If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and follow the instructions there, including emailing [mailto:oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org this address]. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia.

If you do not ensure that the personal information you posted is removed from this site you will be blocked from editing this site. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's completely on the level for Jpgordon to review his own blocks, but in this case it's obviously the right decision. Just thought I'd endorse it to keep things on the up and up. Wily D  15:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm assuming good faith and unprotecting this page so you can tell the world what you told me in email about your intentions. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Jpgordon, I think that my previous appeal was written under the influence of User:Mathsci unethical posts of Bulgarian flag with text "Bulgarian mafia" as well as his personal offences. Now I clearly realize that without rules a site like Wikipedia cannot be controlled by the admins. I would like to request for my ban to be canceled. If my request is accepted I shall not enter into any form of arguing on wikipedia talk pages, and shall not violate the wiki policies. The situation with User:Mathsci run out of control for fault of both sides, however now I think I could have been wiser and refrain from continuing the dispute with him. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 04:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I've not looked at all into Mathsci's actions; someone else will be doing that. You can argue on talk pages -- argue about improving the articles, that is, not about the topics of the articles. You'll understand: Talk:Mathematics is about discussing Mathematics, not discussing Mathematics. We try pretty hard to keep Wikipedia talk pages from becoming general forums; "we're here to write an encyclopedia" is close to a religion here. Anyway, if you think you can stick by our rules, I'll let you back -- you were pretty badly provoked. Your block has been lifted; but you committed one of the more grievous sins around here (violating another editor's anonymity), so you'll be pretty closely watched. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Usually I am not curious about the identity of others, everybody should be free to decide how to contribute. Now I think it is wiser just not to reply to provocations, otherwise the resulting scenes are not pleasant for anyone. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)