User talk:Whydoeswikipedianotletmechooseagoodusername

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯
Hi Why,

While your additions to this article are cogent and broadly correct, they don't fit in with the article at all. Did you read the article that already existed before you started writing? It includes nice descriptions of the divergence of the series, the method of Riemann normalization, etc. It is much broader in focus and content than your note, and also obeys the usual rules of Wikipedia. I would encourage you to read the article that's there and think about how you could improve it, rather than writing a new thing and sticking it on top.

All the best, JBL (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Um, my content is 100% directly relevant. Every conclusion in that article is built on fallacies that literally every single math professor I've contacted has agreed is wrong. You are intentionally sabotaging Wikipedia when you lie that my content is not relevant and should be fired promptly if you continue.


 * It would have saved you a lot of time and energy to read my message here in the first place and think about what it actually said -- your response is almost completely unrelated to its content. The same applies to the article in question: you need to read and think about what it actually says to have any chance of contributing to it in a positive way. --JBL (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ was changed by Whydoeswikipedianotletmechooseagoodusername (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.955951 on 2016-12-27T02:43:02+00:00.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

""Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find WP:NPOV ways of presenting them if needed.""

- WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (t) Josve05a  (c) 08:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add a comment in reply to "I get a lower grade on assignments just for using wikipedia as a reference', as it's an important point though not directly related to your unblock request. It's true that the possibly unreliability of Wikipedia is a problem if used as a source for academic learning, but the bigger reason why Wikipedia is not a suitable reference for higher level education is that it is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, which draws its content mainly from secondary sources and partly from some primary sources. For your academic studies, I'd expect your professors to want you to take the opposite approach - you need to understand and analyse mainly primary and some secondary sources for your work, and draw your own conclusions from that research. I know when I was studying at university I was expected to use original works as my sources and would have been penalized for using an encyclopedia, even Britannica. For example, for some work on John Rawls I had to use his own writings as my sources - had I used the Wikipedia or Britannica entry about him I'd have had a big fat fail. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed | 1=

{{unblock reviewed | 1=I mean I'm aware of the proper procedure here, but I think it's is an exceptional case that warrants exceptional actions, and that's why a non-math oriented person shouldn't be judging math (no offense). How would you like it if a construction worker you've never met said you're a bad writer or a bad administrator? I don't think you understand how messed up this situation is, but I'm willing to comprimise as long as some progress can be made. It's this slow process that allows fallacies to remain uncorrected that discredits wikipedia. The talk section is not full of accredited experts, they're random students or hobbyists who couldn't possibly care less what wikipedia decides to put on its page. Your website really should be actively seeking out experts to talk with like I do and have a team of math experts assess changes, not random people who have nothing to do with math. So, getting a consensus from the talk page is reputably meaningless, more of a novelty than anything. What exactly is your site doing with all that donation money? It only costs a few hundred dollars a month at most to rent a server, and if you and all the other staff are just volunteers, I'm wondering why that money isn't spent on hiring expert consultants to verify information and prevent problems like this in the first place. But, I think there's a way we can both get what we want. What if: I just create a brand new page that's completely separate from the original one, I work on it as I go along adding references and citations as time goes on, getting more people involved and when it's all said and done, I move content from that page onto the original page. I don't interfere with the original page until you or whoever's in change is confident in the credibility of the content and I can build a view-able case for disregarding that other information as I go along, having an organized place for the people I bring to congregate and assess the situation. Lastly, if this was a research paper, sure, citations everywhere. But, I don't understand this thing about needing citations when I'm referencing wikipedia itself, on wikipedia. If I need citations, then that means you're saying all of the wikipedia pages I referenced to build my content aren't credible, since every paragraph of my content was built using that information. But, I don't see you or anyone else admitting that all of those other wiki pages are wrong. And just fyi, I have gotten away with using other encyclopedias as a reference, this is actually the only one I've come across that professors say I can't use. Granted it also depends on the publication date, I couldn't use one that's 50 years out of date, but I can use other up-to-date encyclopedias as a reference. | decline = Procedural decline - new request opened lower down. Peridon (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)}}
 * You appear to be in the academic world where referencing is not the same as it is here. The reason Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source is that anyone can edit it. That's why your professors don't like it, and precisely why we disallow it as a reference here ourselves. Wikipedia is useful for students and even professors as a short cut for finding sources, but it should not be used as a source itself. Links to other Wikipedia pages (like that one) are allowed, but they are NOT references. You CAN use sources already given on other articles, so long as they are relevant and back up your points. You CAN'T refer to the other articles and tell people to look there for sources. As to what is done with the money, there's a lot more than one server for a start. There are over 5,000,000 articles here on the English language Wikipedia - and there are well over 200 more Wikipedias in different languages. There need to be technical staff employed (rather than being volunteers like me) to maintain these servers, and other staff to oversee projects of outreach, legal matters and so on. Wikimedia also hosts things like Wiktionary and many more. I'm no mathematician - I failed maths at school three times (getting lower grades each time) - so I'm not getting involved in the right vs wrong here. I an here as an admin trying to get you to understand that your view of Wikipedia has been mistaken. I will re-allow your access to this page to enable you to answer me and )I hope) ask questions about Wikipedia procedure that can be answered to get you onto the right track. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

 * Temporarily re-allowed to reply to my comments per WP:AGF. If no good comes of it, the access will be revoked once more. Peridon (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.


 * OK. You're wishing that Wikipedia was an academic resource. Fair enough. But it isn't. It's a popular resource which is being built. It started about 20 years ago, and there's no end in sight. Won't be until someone can report (and reliably source - see WP:RS) that Gabriel has blown his trumpet and there has been a discussion about whether or not he had violated Fred Bloggs's copyright on Blo' dat horn, man!. If you get unblocked, you can create a draft page in your user space, and then get a discussion going about whether it's better than the original, or whether bits of it can be merged into the original, or whether you should be burned at the stake as a heretic. Well, perhaps not the last one... I think your idea is good, but it MUST be in user space as we don't have two articles on one subject. Not often, anyway. As to hiring consultants - who chooses them? You - or me - or Fred Bloggs? A lot of quite top people are already editing here - and some under their own names too. I think we're getting somewhere now. I'll just save this in case someone interrupts, and then ping Samtar and Boing!. Peridon (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * and - what do you think? To Whydoes etc, just add any more remarks below, using : at the start of a line to indent (or :: and so on). Sign talk page posts with ~ which saves typing your name in. Peridon (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good way forward, but I'd suggest that rather than producing a full new version of the article (and spending a lot of time on it), it would be better to work on a small addition or change at a time and seek consensus that way - piecemeal changes almost always work better at Wikipedia than a complete rewrite, largely because they are easier to address. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"It isn't, therefore it can't" is not cohesive reasoning, and furthermore it's not just a hope, it's a completely possible goal that can be accomplished one step at a time. But anyway, I'm all for the separate page, I don't have a problem with not having two different articles at once because that would be confusing, that's why I originally added my content to the same page and that's why said I want my page to just be a test page or a project that I can invite people to. Wiki has a lot of good editing and tools and auto-formatting features that would be a hassle to make in other programs, so I think it's good to do it here because then when I get the green light to do something with the page, I can just copy and paste.

Who chooses the consultants? Your budget does. I'm assuming you wouldn't purposely find the worst people for the job, you would find the best, most experienced and reputable people for the money you have, you would research a variety of people who have experience in the field you want verification for, people who have a history or experience with the math and then make your decision rationally. Your fear of change is not rooted in rationality, different educational institutions, corporations and facilities in the public sector hire consultants and freelancers all the time. Whether Wiki likes it or not, average people take wikipedia's information to be absolute truth, that's why it's wikipedia's responsibility to make sure its information is accurate. Hopefully, I will contribute to that ideal one day and bring others along with me.

-Why...
 * OK, I see another misunderstanding here - Wikipedia does not have consultants. The closest to consultants that Wikipedia uses consist of reliable published independent secondary sources (as explained in WP:RS), which, ideally, anyone can consult - we write a paragraph and then cite the published source from which we obtained the information. And that's exactly what an encyclopedia should do - it should reflect what is currently published in reliable sources, not what individuals might currently assert as unpublished truth. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No I know wikipedia doesn't currently have consultants, that's just a tangent in the discussion. From my point of view, everything I wrote is literally common knowledge among mathematicians, as well known as that the Earth is round, except for maybe the bit about Riemann's functional equation. But seeing as how there aren't actually staff members who are experts in mathematics, I'm a lot less volatile about going through the process. I read old release statements from wiki saying that wikipedia only accepts edits from accredited professors with a degree and there's always people like that monitoring the pages, so when I saw this new page, I thought there was some giant conspiracy going on that there were all these accredited people were behind some giant delusion, fabricating lies for media attention who knew better, but really it's just that fact-checking the website is a slow process and there's no actual staff members dedicated to monitoring whether or not the math is correct. For a graduate with 10+ years of experience to say that the divergent sum is equal to a finite number, I would raise a lot of red flags. But for some layman, especially one who failed math class and doesn't know any better, I can agree that citations and a consensus are important.
 * OK, but there aren't any staff members, period. Wikipedia is developed entirely by volunteers. If what you want to add is literally common knowledge among mathematicians, then you can surely provide at least one reliable source for every sentence, can't you? And I have no idea where you read that "Wikipedia only accepts edits from accredited professors with a degree...", as that is entirely false and always has been. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, well I guess that makes sense, and yeah I can provide sources but I was expecting that because it's so well known that I could just as easily add the sources later on or that it wouldn't need to be done. But as you pointed out there's no one on wikipedia to do that, so it falls to me and the network to do it. I mean, asking for citations of it is like asking for citations that 1+1=2. We all know it's true (from my point of view), so it wouldn't have been worth the time to write a three page proof citing every line that proves 1+1=2, and that's actually a rule in mathematics that you don't need to continuously cite references for theorems that are already accepted by the consensus of of the mathematical community, I wouldn't need to cite a paper that proves 1+1=2 or a^2+b^2=c^2 if I was publishing an actual paper in mathematics, only new content that isn't accepted by the consensus of the mathematics community or things that aren't commonly known among my audience. But, I'm not dealing with people who know (relatively) that 1+1=2, so I guess I'm off to do a lot of writing.
 * "But, I'm not dealing with people who know (relatively) that 1+1=2". Exactly - you're writing for thickos like me who only have Masters degrees in Philosophy ;-) I'd still urge you to work on a very small amount at a time and seek consensus as you go, because I'd hate it if you did lots of work all in one go and had it rejected by consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah doing a little bit at a time is one way to go, but I'll explain to you why that doesn't work in this situation: these intial fallacies have lead to several other fallacies, which have lead to several other fallacies which have lead to several other fallacies which have lead to psuedo-math and psuedo-science. It's not a problem that I can just take apart one piece at a time, it's a whole nasty interconnected web of fallacies, and when I pull on one string it deforms and pulls on the whole web. If I only prove one part is wrong at any given moment in time, then it implicates everyone who used that fallacy as a basis for their own conjectures in a very aggressive and seemingly personal way. So if I change only one thing, then it's going to get overwhelmed by the backlash of everything that it is a constituent of and all the other people and theorems that used what I just invalidated. That's why instead of taking the problem apart brick by brick, I just need to come out of nowhere with a wrecking ball, otherwise the bricks will get replaced too quickly.
 * I must note that this is probably a case of WP:RANDY. This article does have a few factual errors, some of which have sources. RedPanda25 03:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't. There's a subfield of mathematics useful in physics that has a specific set of axioms that allows one to assign a value to a divergent series. These values, in my opinion, are fairly meaningless. They certainly aren't meaningful in an analytical sense. But, they allow one to build a theory that is considered credible in physics. They're central to string theory. This series is primarily about this assignment of a value related to string theory, as for any other purpose, this divergent series isn't at all interesting. This is really an issue of notation. When applied to an infinite series, the equals sign usually means "converges to". In this case, it would be more appropriate to call it "is assigned the value of", since this is a divergent series. I imagine that's what's confused this editor, who is insisting that we're passing this off as a convergent series. The content dispute shouldn't be handled here, but I think it's important to realize that the "but I'm right" mentality isn't even correct. As an aside, I am both an administrator and hold a degree in pure mathematics, so I believe this satisfies the call for an administrator with a mathematical background. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Re:"doing a little bit at a time is one way to go, but I'll explain to you why that doesn't work in this situation", I really would strongly urge you to agree to discuss it one issue (one "fallacy") at a time and get consensus step by step, because it seems fairly clear to me that if you present a finished job all in one go you will get opposition, and you could end up wasting a lot of your time. You say "these initial fallacies have lead to several other fallacies, which have lead to several other fallacies which have lead to several other fallacies which have lead to psuedo-math and psuedo-science...", so identify and discuss the first fallacy and see if you can get a consensus on that first one, and then take it from there. Don't just go and change it - get a consensus first that it needs change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Rob, but details and technicalities matter. You are right in some ways, but you did not put enough rigor into your reasoning to know you are still wrong in other ways, and 90% correct isn't good enough for controversial conjectures such as these, we need 100% correct. The axioms are the problem, and the pretense of admission that the series is divergent in one system does not make the fallacious conjectures self-evident in another system. These are not some formally recognized abstract geometric structures like vectors spaces, fields, rings or number lines. These are completely arbitrary axioms that have been arbitrarily inserted into what would otherwise be coherent standard analysis. They are most certainly not an accepted part of physics and math, they are useless and seldom used because they are wrong. You referenced string theory, but does it surprise you to know that string theory is officially denounced by the consensus of the scientific community due to its continuous failure to find evidence?

If I just assume 1+1=402423, I can say that as long is it remains within my own abstract system. The fallacies of the 1+2+3+4+... article are that the authors arbitrarily mix and match different definitions and different systems of axioms within accepted mathematics. Take the Càsaro sum for example, which is sometimes involved in a fallacious attempt to show the 1+2+3+4+... series converges by showing Grandi's series, 1-1+1-1+... converges to 1/2. A Càsaro sum assumes, by its own admission, that it defines convergence completely differently than the way convergence is defined in standard analysis. In standard analysis, convergence is defined as the approach of a function or operation to a finite number as the argument tends to infinity. In a Càsaro sum, convergence is actually chosen to be defined as the establishment of an arithmetic mean of partial sums of an infinite sequence. So, people are wrong to say that standard analysis shows Grandi's series converges, because their reasoning is not based on the same definition of convergence, but they don't realize it because all they see are the words "converge" and "partial sums" and don't have the technical knowledge to distinguish that it's a different definition of convergence. The reason things like vector spaces work is because it can be proven, not assumed, that certain mathematical objects satisfy certain properties that define an element of a particular group, such as a field or matrix group.

But, if something converges under one definition, it doesn't mean it converges under another definition or has anything remotely to do with that alternate definition, they're two separate groups. If math worked like that, vector spaces would solve everything, or set theory would solve everything, or fields would solve everything and we'd only have one field of mathematics ever. But they don't, they all have limitations and restrictions that must be adhered to. Do you see the problem now?


 * That's right, nothing new is supposed to be published here. That's what the scientific and mathematical magazines are for. They pick up on papers published by their authors, and some publish papers directly. We come in after that. Just like the magazine New Scientist, which also picks up on already published research and has its staff writers and consultants write articles for more general consumption. We do it with volunteers, some of whom are experts. Many of us are not - but we are the mechanism by which the place operates. I remove rubbish and talk to people. Sometimes politely. Sometimes less so. Gnomes correct punctuation. Anti-vandal patrollers revert suspect edits by low edit count editors who aren't explaining their edits. And so on. A vast part of the work on Wikipedia isn't seen by the average reader. We do need more experts - just as we need more of all the other types (except the spammers, vandals, point of view pushers, etc). Think this way - you ride (on your horse...) into a town and see crimes being committed. Do you start to handle it by yourself, or find out how the place works? Is the sheriff part of the crime lot? If so, don't tell him what you've seen - get on to higher levels). If he's straight, you need to give him solid evidence that he can work on - and you don't go round shooting people that you are sure are really murderers or thieves. I'm prepared to accept that your horse isn't black, and nor is your hat. But you did rather charge in, guns blazing, and now the sheriff has YOU in the lockup. As always, this little parable isn't 100% accurate, but I hope you see where we're coming from. We do need experts to find the cockups, mistakes, and other garbage and get them dealt with. I like your idea of a reworking of the subject in your user space. It has been done in other areas, and it doesn't cause the same sort of upset as a direct attack. There will be a Math(s) Project somewhere here who would be interested, and I'm prepared to look in to make sure you're using English and not pure jargon (that IS an area of some expertise for me, or it ought to be at least). (Even spammers fall foul of jargon - I deleted one article that was so full of buzz words that I never found out what the company actually did. I did know that they strove after excellence in leveraging their solutions both vertically and horizontally, or words to that effect.) Anyway, you now seem to have accepted that Wikipedia and Academia are two very different ways of putting knowledge in front of people, and have their different protocols. That's a great advance on last night (my time). BTW Please DO sign your comment posts with the four ~ things. It's a bit like remembering to wear your ID badge in college. On this page, we know it's you. If you were posting on someone else's page, they wouldn't (unless they're opted in to the bot that signs things on my talk page). Saves going into History and looking it up. The four ~ things are code to tell the system to sign, and you can even set up fancy coloured ones. Peridon (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand what I did wrong, and I'm not going to make large edits anymore and instead come up with an executable alternative. However, the guns blazing method was a generously appropriate response for what appeared to me to be happening at the time, it is only that such morally reprehensible actions are not taking place that is the reason we are having any discussion. If a police officer finds indication that a murder is happening in a house, they have the right to break the door down and point their gun, it's called probable cause.

I can create a new account and email and change my ip address willfully, and have an entire college of networks and routers next to my house, but I have chosen instead to spend hours working with various administrators to come to an understanding on their terms for making changes to the website. I would also like to point out that you should not interfere with private pages my account before I state that they ready to be reviewed. The reason for this is that there will be few rules about the style or organization of the information prior to its final draft in my own pages, allowing selected members to contribute in the style that best suits them before all being organized into something conducive to Wikipedia.


 * Okay, and we appreciate you taking the time to try to work with us. Could you please clearly outline what you believe you did wrong, and how you would find an executable alternative if unblocked? -- samtar talk or stalk 22:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Outline: What I believe I did wrong was make large changes to Wikipedia content that were not warranted under its policies for making edits. I should have gathered a large number of citations from sources outside of wikipedia and referenced them in the content after first bringing the information to the article's discussions section and garnering support from various users involved with the topic. My alternative is to create a private page or content that is not publicly view-able, but as a work-space to build a list of changes that should be made to the article using citations and support from the professors I involve. After the article makes a series of credible conclusions, I will make its content available to the talk section or copy and paste the content into the talk section of the 1+2+3+4+... article. Whatever changes the majority of people in the talk section can agree needs to take place in the article will then be carried out.

Unblock conditions
I'm willing to unblock you on the following conditions:
 * Please make the improvements you are wanting to make to 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ to Draft:1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ User:Whydoeswikipedianotletmechooseagoodusername/1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ (this is similar to a "workspace" you mentioned above)
 * You agree to read through and abide by our policies on original research and reliable sourcing

The draft page I linked to above is not your own private page (we don't really have "private pages" here), but you will be free to make changes and then gain the consensus to have them merged to the article. You can gain this consensus by asking at Talk:1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯. How does this sound? -- samtar talk or stalk 23:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure: are you sure there's no way to control who edits the content of a non-official page? Because there's such a foundation of pseudo-math that I've found even the 10% of people who actually believe the series is convergent generally don't budge, it's really unlikely they're going to come out and admit they've been doing something wrong for years, so I don't really want someone who I don't know is credible to biasedly argue against everything I try to write. If there isn't a way, then I'm fie with the draft, and if that's the case I think what I'll do is just have a google doc for my own people initially and then we can put the more finalized and debated information from the doc onto the draft wiki page to organize it. I mean the draft page won't show up in the search engine right?
 * Suggestion I'd advise not using the same title for the Draft as for the article. If they're the same (apart from the Draft: bit), there'll be people pointing out that 'there already is an article on that'. It could go in at User:Whydoeswikipedianotletmechooseagoodusername/DRAFT or User:Whydoeswikipedianotletmechooseagoodusername/1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ without the problem. User space is subject to less attention from patrollers, and they can really only tag there for attack, hoax, copyvio, or spam. Also, if this goes ahead, you can think up an easier name and get a name change if you want. Your name isn't a problem for those of us that use copy and paste, but you may need to type it in when logging in... Peridon (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As to the people making a fuss, in your user space they're less likely to find it before they're supposed to see it. Also, you could contact us if there is a real problem with something - to get explanations made. If it's headed EXPERIMENTAL PAGE - UNDER CONSTRUCTION they should leave it alone. Peridon (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, I've noted this above. I echo the above about your username - I would strongly recommend you consider changing it. I can confirm there is no way to control who edits the content, and having that sort of attitude on a collaborative project will just result in this block being re-added. I think your idea of using google docs to build out the proposed changes is a good idea. As mentioned above, if you use User:Whydoeswikipedianotletmechooseagoodusername/1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ to propose your changes it is unlikely anyone would edit the page. You are correct in your assumption that these drafts will not appear in search results --  samtar talk or stalk 15:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, we'll I'm fine with the draft then, I'll add info to it as it becomes ready. Also how do I change my username? I want to do that, but I just never saw a way to do it.

I think the draft could simply be called "revisions of the natural series convergence." It's sort of pushing it to call it a "natural series" because it's not formally recognized as having that name that, but on the other hand, it's getting tedious to keep referencing it without some kind of a name, and no one else actually has a name for it either. But it's a series containing all natural numbers, so might as well call it the "natural series," it should be easy to get people to agree to that.
 * You can change your username by following these instructions -- samtar talk or stalk 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Given your latest display of argumentative behaviour it's pretty clear you're not going to get unblocked any time soon -- samtar talk or stalk 12:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this was withdrawn, as I hadn't seen it, but I have a strong feeling an unblock would be a horrible idea. At first, I treated this like a case of an over-eager editor who learned some things in Calculus II and misunderstood more advanced concepts that seemed at first glance to contradict what he learned. Now, it's becoming clear this is more blatant POV pushing. This editor is dismissing an entire subfield of physics as a "fallacy". Plenty of physicists and laypeople have strong feelings about the validity of string theory, but it is certainly a notable subfield, and many prominent and well-respected physicists believe it to be well-founded in our observations about the universe. There's all of the hallmarks of a disruptive POV pusher here, including a significant WP:IDONTHEARTHAT attitude when explained that these value assignments are not related to convergence, a flippant disregard of the sources in favor of an "I know this better than you" attitude, and blatant personal attacks on contributors attempting to help them. It will be a serious mistake to unblock this editor with anything short of a broadly-construed topic ban on string theory and related mathematical concepts. As an aside, I encourage only an administrator with OTRS access to consider further unblock requests, and I encourage them to read 2016122710002387 first. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A few words of advice
I suggest that before you edit any mathematical articles, you make sure that you have a thorough grasp of the subject of the article. For example, you have made number of statements which show that you were under the impression that the methods given for assigning sums to the series 1+2+3+... were made by people who thought they were dealing with convergence, and that you knew better than they did because you know that the series is divergent. In fact, no mathematician doubts or denies that the series is divergent: the point is that convergence is not the only way that a value can be assigned to a series. Sometimes it is useful to attach a meaning to the sum of a divergent series. It seems that the content of the article appeared to be fallacious to you because you thought that the summation methods involved were mistaken attempts to use convergence, whereas in fact they have nothing to do with convergence. You clearly have some knowledge of mathematics, but equally clearly you do not have a specialist knowledge of the theory of divergent series. I hope these remarks may help you to avoid similar mistakes in future. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No, see, when you say "convergence is not the only way that a value can be assigned..." I mean, in standard analysis, it is the only way to assign a value to something that tends to infinity, and you're not even assigning a value to the sum itself, you're just taking a limit, formally. As I said, the fallacy is in the arbitrary selection and mixing of different definitions within otherwise coherent mathematics. Convergence can have a completely different unrelated definition in one system than in standard analysis, and that doesn't mean you get to say that standard analysis says something that another definition does. Just because I arbitrarily say 1+1=25389273894 doesn't mean every derivation I make from that statement is correct in number theory, because I'm obviously using a completely different set of axioms than those that define number theory. I can only say it's correct within my own set of axioms, and the only possible remote chance of anything otherwise is if I could prove that another mathematical object has the properties that define all an element of the group that I just made up like when you prove a certain set of conditions satisfies a vector space, which, hasn't been done for any of the conjectures in the article. They assume it does because they want it to be true, but they don't prove it, and that's the problem, there is no garuntee that any of their statements are correct, and I have already shown contradictions in their reasoning as a result. At the very least, the article needs to be revised to say "we don't know the real answer yet, but here are the different schools of thought..." It's true that you can compute values of the Riemann zeta function with an alternate representation for negative numbers, but it only works specifically because you're adhering to Euler's definition and strictly refraining from computing negative values, so you're not actually showing that the sum converges when it appears to diverge.


 * A summation is not a function, it's just a general operator, so just because a function may have a broader domain over all complex numbers and may coincidentally happen to have an equation involving a summation, it doesn't magically mean that you can now go back and redefine a summation to have a broader domain that is broader than positive integers, because if you did, you would be using a completely different definition of a summation and your conclusion would then be a contradiction built on a false premise. Such is the case for Riemann zeta regularization, and not coincidentally, every research paper I've found involving theoretical physics with the Riemann zeta regularization has little to no experimental evidence, such as string theory, and are never theories that are accepted as true by the consensus of the scientific community.

Everyone wanted string theory to be true, right? It was this exciting new field that to explore on the frontier of physics, it would answer so many questions and offer a lot of prospects. But pessimists like me said "wait, I'm not seeing any evidence, you're making way too many assumptions..." and continued working on the standard model to discover the Higg's boson, and as time went on, experiment after experiment failed to find any evidence to validate string theory, and it is now dead.


 * But anyway, we can look at this all later, I'll build my case and bring it to the talk section when it's ready and see what they think. I also put in a request to change my username.


 * OK, I'll make just one more attempt to clarify a few points.


 * 1) You say "in standard analysis, it is the only way to assign a value to something that tends to infinity". If by "standard analysis" you mean the usual, well known parts of analysis, the basis of which is known to every mathematician, then you are right, but that is not very relevant, as so far as I know nobody has said otherwise. If, on the other hand, by "standard analysis" you mean analysis based on the usual axioms, as opposed to Non-standard analysis, then you are wrong, as there certainly are other way to assign a value to a divergent series without changing the axioms at all, simply by defining a different concept than the limit of a sequence to define that value.
 * 2) You say "It's true that you can compute values of the Riemann zeta function with an alternate representation for negative numbers". However, the article is not about computing values of the Riemann zeta function. Parts of the article are about using the Riemann zeta function to attach a meaning to the divergent series, but that is a completely different matter.
 * 3) You say "every research paper I've found involving theoretical physics with the Riemann zeta regularization has little to no experimental evidence". That may be so, and if so then perhaps it should be mentioned in any articles about the theoretical physics in question. However, this article is about the mathematics, and the mathematics is used by physicists in the ways described: that is a completely different question from whether the physics in question is supported by experimental evidence or not.


 * If that helps you to see what I was trying to say, then good. If, however, you continue to completely fail to hear what is being said to you, as you did when I posted my message above, and as you have repeatedly done when other editors have said things to you that don't fit in with your ideas, then I give up. I certainly will not support unblocking you as long as it appears that your intention is to keep plugging your own half-understood ideas and insisting that you are right, while everybody who disagrees with you must be wrong, whether they be Wikipedia editors, recognised mathematical authorities, or anyone else. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Signing talk posts
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I can't tell if James is trolling me, because he's ignoring every point I make and it's not even relevant that he's wasting people's time here because I'm not ready to present anything. It doesn't matter if you can make up some random set of axioms that assume the series converges, the assumption that it converges in one system is not a proof that it converges in another system. You're still wrong that standard analysis gives other methods of computation. For instance, if I define a function as f(x)=x/x, from your reasoning you would say f(x)=1 at x=0. However, it doesn't matter if it looks like it simplifies to 1 and that the limit approaches 1, there is still an undefined division by zero of the function as f(x)=x/x, but not of the function f(x)=1, so it is still incorrect to say f(x)=1 at x=0 when f(x)=x/x, it is only correct the say that the limit approaches 1 as x approaches 0 because it appraoches f(x)=1 at x=0, and dividing or multiplying by 0 most certainly is not an invertible operation that can be used to prove 0/0=1 anyway. In a similar manner, it is still incorrect to say that Euler's representation converges for values less than 1, unless you make assumptions in which you already assume you can do so, which isn't relevant to the rest of the whole of mathematics. Just because you recognize that they're using a different definition doesn't mean it's valid within the rest of mathematics, and in a similar way, just because I correctly 1+1=2 doesn't mean I can correctly say 5+5=potato within the same axioms that can prove 1+1=2; the two systems aren't connected in any way. 5+5 only equals potato if I define a set of axioms where that is already the case, in which 1+1=2 is no longer a valid statement.

The entire article is nothing more than a petty attempt to awe people by changing the definition of certain operations to fit what the authors arbitrarily desire as the result, and using the same methodology I can show that 1+2+3+4+...=1/3 or 1/4 or 1/5 or any other number. If they do make up another set of axioms where Euler's summation converges for s<1, then it's no longer Euler's representation or the Riemann zeta function, it's something completely different and they must call it something else. Similarly, I can't say that something with 4 equal side lengths at right angles is a circle, I have to come up with a new name, like a square. And maybe somehow the arbitrary results will have some kind of relevance someday, but that day is not today. Until you understand that the article is using completely different definitions for operations than those defined in standard analysis (also known as mathematical analysis), there's no point debating with you. And btw, your arbitrary assumptions have nothing to do with whether or not I get unblocked, showing that your emotions cause extreme bias in your decisions and thus that your judgement should not be trusted. I already came up with a plan that is consistent with wikipedia's policies and it is up to the consensus of the peers in the talk section to decide if the information I present to them warrants changes. If wikipedia lets anyone make changes and won't even give me a private page just for my own edit, then it is also unjust for you to decide who gets to edit what. If what I'm saying really is wrong, then you have nothing to worry about and the consensus will reject 100% of everything I say and it will have turned out that every credible mathematician I talked to was secretly lying to me this whole time about my being correct. (Whydoeswikipedianotletmechooseagoodusername (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC))
 * I think you are missing the point. All of what you're saying may be true, but that doesn't mean it belongs in this Wikipedia article. All of that is explained in this policy. RedPanda25 02:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That must be the most extreme case of IDHT that I have read for a very long time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@RedPanda25: But it belongs in the article because the article is still stating it keeps the same definition of the Riemann zeta function, which it can't, while purposely omitting the fact that it's redefined other operators, which needs to be stated to support its reasoning. The content I would add would also show what would happen if you did mix up the different definitions, which, is clearly an issue or the content of the article wouldn't have gotten enough attention to warrant being created, since it has just as much meaning to math as assuming 5+5=potato. Do you see any articles on "5+5=potato"? I don't, because it's meaningless and has no utility, and if the authors of the article knew that, they wouldn't have bothered to write the article. It needs to be solved once and for all, people need to have a place to go so they can say "hey wait a minute, this is all a bunch of gibberish, they changed the meaning of everything to make their statements true!" (Whydoeswikipedianotletmechooseagoodusername (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)) --UTRSBot (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)