User talk:To Serve Man

love your id


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey
Just wanted to say welcome and thank you for your edits of the UHJ article. Feel free to comment back on my talk page with anything. Peter Deer (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

December 2019
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Quadratic formula, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Please find a reliable wp:secondary source for this, in order to establish wp:dueness. - DVdm (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I cited a reliable source—a published paper. It was cited twice in my modifications. Could you please explain what was wrong with the source I cited? - To Serve Man 21:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The paper is dated October 2019 and it's a wp:primary source, so in order to establish its wp:dueness, you'lll need a wp:secondary source that mentions your primary source. - DVdm (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * According to wp:Reliable sources, "The policy on sourcing is Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations". Primary sources are not categorically disallowed, but may be acceptable depending upon context in light of the forgoing policy. In the context of mathematics, verifiability is a straightforward matter, and in the present case, the mathematical method presented is entirely objectively verifiable by nearly anyone with mathematical ability. Citing the primary source that describes the present method is entirely reasonable (and I can cite many, many Wikipedia pages on mathematical topics that cite primary sources for their methods).


 * What aspect of the method that I added in this edit do you believe would ever be subject to challenge? The method in the paper cited in the present edit under discussion is unlikely to ever be cited in a secondary source. A source is generally only cited either when it is found to be flawed, or when it becomes the basis for further developments. In the former case, it is of such simplicity that its truth is easily verifiable; in the latter, the citing paper would not be useful as a secondary source. - To Serve Man 22:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The aspect that is challenged, is its dueness. Anyone can invent new techniques and publish them on arxiv. Only when new stuff is picked up and used elsewhere, is the material likely to be sufficiently interesting to appear in an encyclopedia. This is explained in wp:due. DVdm (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)