User talk:Shashwat Bajpai 1729

Welcome!
Hello, Shashwat Bajpai 1729, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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 complete 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! — Anita5192 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Hello, I'm Anita5192. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Quadratic equation have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. — Anita5192 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Quadratic formula. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually the matter I have added was correct and recently poplar so I thought adding it to Wikipedia. It's a huge accomplishment for a 16 year old so I wanted to add it in the Quadratic equation page. It could be quite helpful. Please add it. Shashwat Bajpai 1729 (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because this is nothing remarkable (I could have derived it at age 14 or 15, for starters) and no one else has provided WP:SECONDARY sources indicating the notability of your work. You also don't appear to know how to properly do mathematical writing; your paper contains several errors in this regard and that journal is not highly regarded by anyone (hardly anyone cites papers from it). Even if the journal were a significant one, one publication does not notability make. Please read WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:PROUD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is already present on the page Quadratic formula under the heading splitting into real and imaginary parts but his name was not mentioned so I just wanted alteast his name to be mentioned. So please reconsider my request. Shashwat Bajpai 1729 (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

He had proved quadratic formula at an age of 11. But this time he proved it by another method which used complex numbers and complex plane. It was like adding another dimension to the problem. So please reconsider. I'll be thankful. Shashwat Bajpai 1729 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Quadratic formula. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Shashwat, I think you are grossly overestimating the impact of your work. The fact is, this derivation is a howler, deriving a known correct result using incorrect means. You cannot assume $$\text{Im}(x) \neq 0$$. That is precisely the case when the solution is wholly real. Nor can you use the construction of equating real and imaginary parts when the coefficients are not restricted to be real.
 * Even if it were correct, deriving a formula that can easily be derived by anyone with a knowledge of elementary algebra is nothing remarkable, and we are not here to further promote your work. Per WP:SECONDARY, your own work is not enough as a source: we need evidence that the mathematical community has paid significant attention to your work. You're also almost certainly wrong to claim to be the first one to do a derivation of this sort. Therefore, our decision to remove your content is final, unless and until you can provide more independent reliable sources (preferably from a reputable mathematical journal, not a low-quality one as your paper appears in).--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It is approved by Presh Talwalkar Shashwat Bajpai 1729 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An easy counterexample to the false statement that $$\forall w, x, y, z \in \mathbb{C},\ w + xi = y + zi \implies w = y, x = z$$: let $$w = x = 1, y = 2, w = 1 + i$$, clearly $$1 + i = 2 + (1 + i)i = 2 + i - 1 = 1 + i$$. If you do restrict these coefficients to be real, then your derivation in the paper utterly fails to cover the situation of distinct real roots. Presh Talwalkar is not a reliable source. Also, this derivation cannot at all account for the case of complex coefficients, which make any algebraic expression in terms of the coefficients generally non-real.
 * I really do not mean to be discouraging, but the fact of the matter is, per Wikipedia's policies (which I repeat, please read through their entirety), this is unsuitable for Wikipedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2024
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * I want to assure you that my intention is not to cause disruption but rather to contribute accurate and relevant information to the article in question.
 * I am the sole author of the journal article being referenced, titled "Complexity in Quadratic," published in the International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), Volume 8 Issue 12, December 2019. You can refer to the article here : https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=ART20203372
 * I believe that the inclusion of this citation supports the veracity of the information presented and aligns with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. I am open to discussing any concerns or issues you may have with my contributions and would appreciate the opportunity to address them collaboratively.
 * If there are specific aspects of my edits that you find problematic, I am more than willing to engage in a constructive discussion either on my talk page, the article's talk page, or through any appropriate channels you recommend. Shashwat Bajpai 1729 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It is a predatory journal. Paying for publication in a predatory journal does not 'align' with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. I am afraid you have wasted your money. MrOllie (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)