User talk:MarkH21/Archive 1

Of possible interest?
Hi. You might like the way 1976 Tangshan earthquake is shaping up. Though there are some aspects (current and prospective) where I could use some discussion.

On a related point of possible interest: is your Chinese up to scanning some Chinese articles? I have found that English language sources for certain aspects of the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake (such as the 830,000 death toll) are amazingly thin, and the only likely authoritative sources are in Chinese. Would you be interested in chasing that down? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message, I'll take a look but I may not be able to dedicate the time to this in the near future. MarkH21 (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Hello, I'm Matthew hk. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Willy Aubameyang, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''instead of official name, wikipedia usually use common name as WP:article title. Also, please provide reliable source for alleged full name  Matthew_hk   t  c '' 22:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I added a source and the talk page should reflect such. MarkH21 (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

some copy-editing
Hello.

Please note these edits. In particular, I changed the hyphens in the title to en-dashes, as in the title phrase in the body of the article, and also in page ranges. That punctuation is prescribed and codified in WP:MOS There are also some TeX edits and other edits. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edits! MarkH21 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: ~Swarm~  {talk}  23:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you are interested in cycling-related themes, you may want to check out the Cycling Portal. If you are interested in contributing more to cycling related articles you may want to join WikiProject Cycling.

Again, welcome! BaldBoris 21:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox mathematical statement
Template:Infobox mathematical statement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

TfD Infobox
I decided to let you know that my edit, striking my name from a list I consider to be defamatory and correcting the list count, which you reverted and commented on quite cursorily led to me being templated on my TP and, for my angry rebuttal, summoned to WP:ANI by Pigsonthewing and indef'd (meanwhile lifted).

I emphasize that I strongly hesitate before editing other's comments, but I consider the mentioned edits a very minor WP-sin, and your cursory, non-withdrawing comment, trying to justify including me in a list with a fully inappropriate property, as more annoying than my edits. I still would prefer that you revise the description of your, imho, unwarranted perceptions or gatherings from my statements. I will not judge the other entries in your list, but I perceived that they too CAN see usability in infoboxes. I perceive your description as a blatant effort of manipulating !voters.

I also want to emphasize that my del-!vote on your box has nothing to do with these WP-inherent laughablenesses. Feel free to delete this, and, in spite of all disagreement, please, do not perceive hostility. Purgy (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi! I don't know if you saw my comment on your talk that's precisely about this as I only just noticed this chain of events. Based on I perceive your description as a blatant effort of manipulating !voters., I think there is still a misunderstanding.
 * I was trying to emphasize what I thought the comment meant at the time of infobox implementation and once I realized that this emphasis was not clear enough after your edit, I further prefaced my mention of your comment with an italicized "at the time" in the aforementioned revert. With this distinction explicit, the purpose of that should be clear now. I mentioned my perception of your comment (which was wrong!) to clarify that I did not perceive there to be a consensus against the particular infobox when I decided to implement it (in response to the wording of the nomination for deletion). I hope you understand that it was not an attempt to mischaracterize the actual intent of your comment! — MarkH21 (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi MarkH21. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AMarkH21 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Infoboxing FLT
I apologized already once for impeaching your qualification as a self-appointed mathematician (see recently added user BOX 19:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC) ), and won't do this again. However, I cannot avoid to perceive your behavior on this pet BOX of yours as being in strong opposition to several prominent reputable 19:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC) math editors (not including me!), as canvassing (in a fully legal and WP-approved manner 19:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC) ) fundamentalist infoboxers of WP to this case, and as blowing up the tolerant bits of judgement (roughly: the box won't disturb, but is useless here) as acceptance. How about accepting competently reasoned judgement, instead of blockheadedly exploiting some WP-eternal feud for your toy?

I also perceive your refactoring (especially the first version!) of the TP there as a severe intrusion into the rights of the respective authors. If I compare me removing just my name out of a blatantly imputing context ("correct to your perception"), leading to me being templated and indef'd, and your actions now, I can't help but seeing my actions as a ridiculously minor matter (quod licet iovi, ...).

Last flare-up on this matter: any argumentation, justifying the context-less content of an infobox by the (non-)content of the article is fundamentally flawed. The complexity of many math statements render infoboxes as manipulative fake-news. I am neither against all, nor everywhere against infoboxes. This IB at FLT is an offense to nous, cheating on any passer by.

I try not to be manipulated by the wisdom of the masses, and won't change my opinion, but will certainly accept any consensus. Purgy (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit surprised at this reaction and I apologize for any perceived aggression but I really am just trying to have the debate closed in an independent and agreeable manner!


 * canvassing (in a fully legal way) fundamentalist infoboxers of WP to this case: This is a serious and baseless accusation. Where have I canvassed anybody? The only time I have talked to any uninvolved editor about this infobox discussion is the post I just made on this talk page belonging to who was mentioned as an independent ex-arbitrator with experience on this issue. It's fine if you object to that choice of external assistance, but I don't see how I am canvassing fundamentalist infoboxers. (Without evidence, this accusation is a personal attack. 20:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC) )
 * I also perceive your refactoring (especially the first version!) of the TP there as a severe intrusion into the rights of the respective authors: It really was an effort to focus the first part of the discussion to just content, as it is a rather long block of text for an external editor to look at. I apologize for moving it to the section where it would have confused the ordering and context of posts and I see that point, which is why I already moved it to a new subsection.
 * your behavior on this pet box of yours as being in strong opposition to several prominent math editors... and as blowing up the tolerant bits of judgement (roughly: the box won't disturb, but is useless here) as acceptance. How about accepting competently reasoned judgement, instead of blockheadedly exploiting some WP-eternal feud for your toy?: Again, I don't understand why you believe that I am on some rampage to include some "toy" of mine. It doesn't matter who is a "prominent math editor". I engaged a discussion on whether to include the infobox or not. I gave some reasons for including it. Others gave reasons for and against it. I responded to the reasons against it and we found some disagreement. I am looking to resolve the dispute through normal external means since there is no clear consensus. There's really nothing wrong or blockheadedly exploitative about this. (Calling my actions blockheaded exploits is a personal attack. 20:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC) )
 * Assume good faith. Make no personal attacks. I’m glad this is your “last flare-up”, enough. Finally, and least importantly, stop referring to me as a "self-appointed mathematician". — MarkH21 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you've just edited your post here. In particular, you write that the canvassing you accuse me of is in a fully legal and WP-approved manner. Note that the definition of canvassing here is: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. Therefore canvassing is not WP-approved by definition nor have I committed it. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Notification of discretionary sanctions
--regentspark (comment) 21:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you're editing in the area, a heads up that articles related to the Kashmir conflict are under tighter restrictions including, but not limited to, a 1RR restriction. --regentspark (comment) 21:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Off wiki canvassing.
Thank you for the advice. I did post on Facebook a request for support, but emphasized that what was needed was reliable sources, which I may not have read, that have reviewed my work. I will avoid such posts in the future.
 * No problem. It did seem to be carefully worded and done professionally (as much as an off-wiki post could be), and doesn’t really fall into the same category of egregiousness that these matters usually devolve to :) — MarkH21 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop removing my edits on the dreadlocks page. I am writing facts and you and another person keeps deleting it. Locs come from MY people and I have the right to educate others about where the name “dreadlock” originates from PantherBlackone (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) You need to provide references for your addition to the Dreadlocks page. 2) You need to refrain from edit warring when others (rightfully) remove your unreferenced additions. If you disagree with another editor's revert of your additions then start a discussion on the talk page instead of continuing to re-add the material. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Height function
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Elliptic curve
Would you be able to take a look at my creation q:Elliptic curve and answer a query of mine (I don't understand the math involved)? Our article Faltings's theorem seems to imply that from the POV of algebraic geometry elliptic curves with genus 1 are the hardest i.e. harder than genus g=0 or >1 whereas Michael Harris says they are the "simplest class of polynomial equations for which there is no simple way to decide whether the number of solutions is finite or infinite". Solomon7968 00:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The g > 1 curves are really more difficult to understand than elliptic curves. This is evident in the fact that the genus 1 case (elliptic curves) of Faltings's theorem is actually the Mordell–Weil theorem which was proved in the 1920s whereas a higher genus analogue was not determined until the 1980s using significantly more sophisticated techniques. There is a lot about the structure of elliptic curves that is well-understood by mathematicians (and there is a lot that isn't!), but the structure of higher genuses is more of a mystery. We cannot say much in general about how many rational points a higher genus curve may have whereas, for instance, the BSD conjecture and torsion theorem tell a lot about what the group of rational points of an elliptic curve should look like.The quote by Michael Harris is not really about comparing elliptic curves to higher genus curves, since Faltings's theorem tells us that the number of solutions is finite when g > 1. It refers to the rational points of algebraic varieties of dimension greater than 1 (e.g. dimension 2 = algebraic surfaces) about which we know very little! So the quote does not contradict Faltings's theorem :) — MarkH21 (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your explanation is very nice, thank you. A further question (no need to ping further): In polynomials in one variable we get struck at degree five i.e. Galois theory, in two variables at degree three i.e. elliptic curves the topic of this post, in three variables where do we get struck? You say above that "algebraic surfaces about which we know very little" does this refers to the scenario when there are three or more variables? BSD, Hodge and Riemann conjectures are I assume associated with this as is Langlands program and Grothendieck's motives. Solomon7968 04:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In two variables, we don't really get stuck at elliptic curves. Just as in Faltings's theorem, they're really the starting point for studying algebraic curves in general. Once we move to surfaces, there is really little that we know in the detail that we do for curves. For example, The Bombieri–Lang conjecture is an analogue of Faltings's theorem for surfaces that is a much less refined statement about the structure of the set of rational points on a surface and is unproved! Furthermore, there is no degree that we really get "stuck" at for either curves or surfaces.What we really have is that elliptic curves are the starting point for studying curves, which in turn are the starting point for studying algebraic varieties in general. Surfaces are just the next step after curves - in fact, much of what we know about surfaces involves reducing problems to ones about curves such as the second sentence in this MathOverflow post. It's not like geometric topology where higher dimensions are often easier to understand than lower dimensions (e.g. the generalized Poincaré conjecture) - the low genus / low dimension objects are the only ones that we are able to understand anything! Note that this applies not just for the study of rational points on algebraic varieties, but also their general theory even over the complex numbers.Finally, the major problems and areas of research are indeed closely related. BSD pertains directly to the structure of rational points of elliptic curves, the Hodge conjecture doesn't pertain so much to rational points but does relate the algebraic structure of an algebraic variety to its subvarieties (similar to how the Bombieri–Lang conjecture can allow one to relate the rational points on a surface of general type to those on curves on the surface), and the Riemann hypothesis has countless connections to this subject (e.g. the Weil conjectures which give a very general analogue for algebraic varieties). The Langlands program and motives are less directly related but have far-reaching indirect connections. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User Oon
Thanks for your help, mate. I have been in this trouble for almost a month and I'm in charge of the Ultraman section of Wikipedia. Its crystal clear that the user is a hypocrite, trying to hide behind multiple anon accounts. Zero stylinx (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think that the user is well-intentioned and wants to help expand those articles, but the user's plagiarism and edit warring is disruptive. Hopefully they will begin discussion instead of continuing this behavior.Regarding your wording I'm in charge of the Ultraman section of Wikipedia: this is against the policy against any user owning part of Wikipedia. I understand that you have contributed greatly to this area of Wikipedia, but please be careful with your wording and avoid any claims of ownership. Cheers. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, and apologies. What I really meant is that I'm usually worked on the Ultra Series page to improve them to suit the Wikipedia's standard procedure. I'll be careful with what I'm saying next time. However believe me, he deny this plagiarism claim but his edit says otherwise is what makes me suspicious.Zero stylinx (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oon did it again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultraman_Nexus&diff=894972136&oldid=893265338

He lied. He did it again as his recent edit. Zero stylinx (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't lied. I just want want to rearrange it that all.That Zerostylinx mistakenly thought I lied. It only rearrange and tidy up. Or is it Zerostylinx thought that I didn't rearrange properly well. Oon835 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Explain which part in "rearrange"? As seen for your last revision in Ultraman Max, if listing characters in a main fiction page, all characters should be given a group header, not one of them given a single header. Additionally, your bulletting is the worst: the " " code should not be put in character and cast listing because its only expanding the page with lots of empty space, including not to bold a character's name. This is a Japanese drama article, not a Power Ranger. Second, you were reverting the synopsis section of Ultraman Nexus to a longer version, which was flagged for being too elaborate.Zero stylinx (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * at Ultraman Nexus clearly readds material that you tried to add and . This is a violation of the policy against edit warring that I strongly suggest you read. Stop continuing to add material that others have removed. This is why . Please discuss at the article talk page (such as this one) if you would like to add something that someone else has objected to and removed. We will appreciate your future cooperation. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

About Sockpuppet
I'm not a sockpuppet that I didn't do it and it's was my 2 friends who did it. They come here to borrow my computer and they edit the wikipedia pages without joint as a new users. Lucky I stop them from doing it. So I apologise to you that my 2 friends who cause it so much trouble. Oon835 (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you forgotten that I'm here to clear my name that I'm not doing like a sockpuppet it's was my 2 friends who did that. They borrow my computer and they edit the wikipedia pages without joint as a new users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oon835 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you - this is unexpected and gratefully received! Thank you as well for your contributions throughout the project, for your guidance, and for your work in brightening the editing community here :) — MarkH21 (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This had to be expected since you tried that implementation, but had to wait until the RfC was closed. I hope you aware that the award comes from the cabal of the outcasts, and was given by the "most disruptive infobox warrior" ;) - I can live with the attribute because I believe that the set of infobox warriors is empty, - what does it mean then to be extreme, mathematically? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Violet Oon
Hello! Your submission of Violet Oon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

By the way, just curious: are you Singaporean? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review the nomination! I'll think of a better hook :)Nope! I previously spent some time in Singapore but I'm not Singaporean. I seem to have dealt with an unusual number of edit-warring Singaporean editors lately though... — MarkH21 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Goro Shimura
Stephen 23:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!
I see that you welcomed/warned 2604:2D80:4406:8AF1:10B8:CFD1:9F7F:DBC9 recently after the user left a confusing message on my talk page (honestly a little hurt by the tone that was used by the user). Anyways I wanted to thank you for that. I guess the IP User is not having a good day? Happy editing! OkayKenji (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, there are a lot of trolls and idiots out there. Sometimes they spew nonsense because their vandalism or other bad edits were removed. Sometimes they do it for no clear reason.It’s best to ignore them. Please carry on with the great contributions you make here – particularly to the articles on space exploration/launches! Cheers! — MarkH21 (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. :) OkayKenji (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems of used the Talk Pages
I was only afraid that users might never reply me some answers because they might had forgot to reply or the other users look unfriendly to me. You let me explain that last wednesday I went to edit the Nexus and Max pages because that Zero stylinx must had mistakenly deleted the wrong source pages that an important one so that why I'm here to restore it back. That's why I'm afraid to talk to Zero stylinx because it's doesn't look friendly to me before I starts to edit the pages. He is wrong to accuse me a liar you know I never lied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oon835 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are other editors here, besides, so you should use the article talk pages regardless of whom you think is unfriendly. If your edits are contested, then begin a discussion instead of continuing to re-add your content. Can you confirm that you have read the guidelines on edit warring? This was the primary reason why you were blocked and why your behavior has been seen as disruptive.Side note: please sign your messages on talk pages such as the comments you place here by placing  at the end of your message. Thanks. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I leave him to your observation? You look like you're good in handling this. Zero stylinx (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I now accept your guidelines.Oon835 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You still forgot about the Sockpuppet investigation that I already told you that I want to clear my name.Oon835 (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've decided to read the guidelines. As for your sockpuppet investigation, it is now closed because we cannot formally link user accounts to IP addresses. However, you are responsible for your own account and your own computer. An excuse of "I didn't do it... my 2 friends did it" will not work when it is obvious that the content being added is what you previously added. Please try to prevent that from happening again. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I already stop them from doing it again.Oon835 (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I report to you if there is an unfriendly users that against me? Oon835 (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

How many article pages had been deleted by Wikipedia admins and what's the reason? Oon835 (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You should not really report them to me because I am not an administrator. Also, you should first try to talk to the user before reporting them. The following options are available if you have already tried talking to the other editor.
 * If you would like a third person to look over a dispute, you can contact me or another experienced editor.
 * If it is a dispute about content or something that is not absolutely urgent, then you can ask for a third opinion from a neutral editor or open a formal request for comment.
 * If you find users who are acting in violation of the conduct policies or behavioral guidelines, then you should direct your complaints to an administrator.
 * As a last resort, the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents is used for urgent incidents.
 * I hope that's clear. Please do try talking to the other editor before taking any of these steps. You can find more advice at Dispute resolution.As for deleted articles, this happens when articles do not meet the standards for notability, have copyright violations, or otherwise violate Wikipedia policies. Article deletion is typically done through one of the following three processes: speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and articles for deletion. The first two processes are for articles that clearly do not belong on Wikipedia while the third allows editors to discuss whether articles satisfy the Wikipedia policies. I don't know how many are deleted every day but the number is probably quite large because Wikipedia is so large. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't know that I thought you are an administrator. I want ask you after the pages was deleted did the users recreate a new one to make look a bit differents. I know its sounds really bad to heard so many pages had been deleted and that cause so many problems to the users.Oon835 (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes that happens. Sometimes users recreate an article properly and it stays on Wikipedia and sometimes they violate the same rules that got the article deleted in the first place. Most of the time, it is the bad articles that cause problems to other users rather than administrators acting poorly. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You see I really like to read one my favourite pages such as Power Rangers Pages but I found some of the pages is gone and it's makes me really unhappy. Also Zero stylinx already told to me that some of the Super Sentai Pages also deleted. Oon835 (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you that I'm not happy with KenYokai because the last time after I edited the Ultraman 80 page by rearrange it with putting the cast list and the song list. But suddenly he reverted it back without giving me some reason in my talk page. Of cause you I not going for a war and I'm come here for peace. Oon835 (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * His mentions the reason as your edits being "unnecessary". If you have an issue with it, please talk to  at the user's talk page or the article talk page rather than here. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, from now on you already know I only want peace and not a war. Now I have good thing to tell you that I'm very busy to help the other users to list out sets of the Lego models for the Lego pages that's no problems at all. If I need your help and you don't mind if I talk to you in your talk page anytime I want.Oon835 (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Yo, I need an urgent help. The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oon835 has been adding poor copy paste translations from Japanese Wikipedia to Ultraman articles. I have been reverting his edits twice and he was also reverting an admin's edit. Can you observe his contribution list for a moment? I warned him twice back then (first I used excessive force, then I realized what I did was bad, so the second time I asked him nicely). If he did it again, I may as well resort to reporting his actions.
 * This was left on my own talk page, hence why I was reverting these edits fyi:

I mean look at his edit history! He sandwiched the cast section in between synopsis (above) and character list (below). He even disrupt the cast listing mode.

Zero stylinx (talk) 8:59 am, 9 April 2019, Tuesday (29 days ago) (UTC−5)" KenYokai (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Enough of it KenYokai I not going to do it anymore.Oon835 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Violet Oon
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

GH
FHIK OHJO OKFG9OK KOKHOFHL PFJNB,KHJOF KONJOLVP HJHGK .H HGJHKCGKBFK MKCJXJK MFJC — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.k.m2003 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what you mean — MarkH21 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Manifold vs variety
I have added to q:Algebraic geometry a new quote by Atiyah which you may like to peruse. As I understand, the difference between a manifold and a variety boils down to Resolution of singularities; which in characteristic p is unsolved; whereas in characteristic 0 proved by Hironaka. Jaffe and Witten says in the official problem description of the yang-mills problem that "classical non-abelian gauge theory has played a very important role in mathematics in the last twenty years, especially in the study of three and four dimensional manifolds". However you told me above that "It's not like geometric topology where higher dimensions are often easier to understand than lower dimensions". As I see it Jaffe and Witten are referring to the work of Simon Donaldson or are they referring to someone else? Does that mean if we can solve Resolution of singularities in characteristic p, classification of varieties would be as easy as a manifold? Solomon7968 12:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you Mark but I am still waiting for you reply. I see from your user page that you speak and/or interested in things Chinese and today's DYK section has an entry on two Chinese mathematicians, Xiuxiong Chen and Song Sun (created by and ), both co-authors of Simon Donaldson and contributors to something similar of this talk page post. Quite a co-incidence I suppose. Solomon7968 06:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I meant to respond to this when I saw it but it must have slipped my mind. I’ll get back to you soon! — MarkH21 (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI I just started the WQ article on Simon Donaldson and Henri Cartan. Now q:Algebraic geometry contains no redlinks i.e. only blue links. Sorry to keep badgering you but I hope that you look to the WQ article and also answer my question. Solomon7968 12:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are referring to the work by Donaldson, but may also be including others in Yang-Mills gauge theory (Shing-Tung Yau, Karen Uhlenbeck, Jonathan Sacks, etc). Indeed, my point about high dimensions sometimes being easier to understand is still true here. See Generalized Poincaré conjecture (the work by Stephen Smale preceding the lower dimensional cases) and 4-manifold for instance. Regarding resolution of singularities: not really. There is a lot more structure that a variety can have that would make classification a different problem. For one, this would fall into the question of birational classification (e.g. the minimal model program), which is just classification up to one property (birational equivalence). One can look at other structural questions to classify varieties (e.g. from a rational points perspective) that are totally unknown. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Orderable group
I found an inaccurate point. When looking for "orderable group", I could see that this is forwarded to "Partially ordered group". But that's not correct at all. An orderable group is a group equipped with a TOTAL ordering which is invariant on at least one side. The more precise terms "left-orderable group" and "right-orderable group" are also used, but the intersection with "partially ordered group" is tiny, and these are completely disjoint subjects and authors. How to cope with that problem? Patrick Dehornoy 17:45, 08 August 2019 (GMT)


 * This is probably because an article for orderable group does not exist, so the next best thing is to redirect it to partially ordered group rather than leave it empty. You can create a new article for orderable groups if you'd like! — MarkH21 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)