Rmor312

Rmor312, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Rmor312! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Achillefs Tzioufas moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Achillefs Tzioufas, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Achillefs Tzioufas (February 3)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by David.moreno72 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

David.moreno72 10:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tzioufas A.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Tzioufas A., was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Csgir (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Tzioufas Achillefs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tzioufas Achillefs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzioufas Achillefs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Achillefs Tzioufas

Hi Rmor312,

Welcome to Wikipedia. I can see that you're having a somewhat frustrating time at the moment, related to Achillefs Tzioufas. I wanted to make some comments to help you understand and deal with what is happening; if you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch here or at my talk page.

As Wikipedia gained prominence, it had to deal with a lot of promotional editing: people trying to add what were essentially advertisements for their business, for example, or people trying to maintain a Wikipedia page for themselves as they might a CV or a personal website. This is obviously problematic, and so we've developed a bunch of policies about what content can be added to WP. The broad spirit of these policies is that information on Wikipedia should be verifiable in reliable sources that are independent of their subject, and that a certain amount of coverage is necessary in order to ensure that a topic is really of encyclopedic significance. (There are a lot of links I could give you to read that detail these policies, but I won't unless you ask. I'm sure you've seen some of them already.)

One frustrating feature of this system is that sometimes things that are clearly interesting, or important, or so on, will not pass the bar for inclusion right away. I recently had an experience like this with a new journal (Algebraic Combinatorics) -- I originally drafted an article for it a year ago, after it was founded, but there was a consensus that this was too early; after a year, there was more coverage (in the case of the journal, it got listed in prominent databases of journals), and so then the article was recreated.

The situation with Tzioufas may be similar: if the result is as significant as you seem to think, then within a couple of years there will be lots of citations to it in the literature, other people using it in their work, etc. -- and then the situation can be reevaulated. Tzioufas seems to have a similar publication record to me a few years ago: a handful of publications in good journals for his field, beginning from his time in graduate school -- and I am definitely not notable by Wikipedia standards. Moreover, publishing one important paper is almost never enough to get over this barrier, unless it solved a really major problem and generated news media coverage as a result. (Solving a 35-year old conjecture is an accomplishment, but it's not nearly as rare as you seem to believe: mathematics is full of open problems of that age.)

I hope this is helpful to you, and that you'll find other productive ways to contribute to Wikipedia.

JBL (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please point to a specific regulation evoked, or try a reasonable argument: Otherwise, please stop trying to falsify facts!

I rather thought my comments above were quite reasonable; what they were not was an argument. It's quite rude to accuse someone of "falsifying facts", too, but since I don't have any idea what you mean by that in this case, it won't bother me too much.

Unfortunately people who stubbornly keep trying to make the same edit over and over again without learning about how we do things here often end up getting blocked; I hope this won't happen to you. Wikipedia's main notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability, and the guideline specifically for academics is Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). But you knew about that already, and you know that Tzioufas doesn't meet it, because you tried to change it so that it would apply to him. I think that kind of behavior would strike a lot of people as bad form. (To understand why, you might find it helpful to read our consensus policy Wikipedia:Consensus, about the decision-making process here.) --JBL (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[[

Hello Mr. Lewis, this is a list of unsolved problems in mathematics, so all your arguments, which pertain to whereas a new entry for Prof. Tzioufas may be accepted, are entirely irrelevant. Now, which word from the first three lines of the abstract of the paper cited you fail to understand?

We consider the cardinality of supercritical oriented bond percolation in two dimensions. We show that, whenever the origin is conditioned to percolate, the process appropriately normalized converges asymptotically in distribution to the standard normal law. This resolves a longstanding open problem pointed out to in several instances in the literature. The result applies also to the continuous-time analog of the process, viz. the basic one-dimensional contact process.

I think, that I am not the one having problems understanding. It is a shame, because the only realistic endpoint of your continued behavior is that you end up blocked (as I and several other editors have been trying to tell you).

By the way, if you wish to refer to me by title and family name, the correct title is either "Dr." or "Professor". (As someone who claims to be an academic, you should understand that, just like you should understand that Tzioufas is a post-doc and not a professor.)

--JBL (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in mathematics

Your recent editing history at List of unsolved problems in mathematics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Owen× ☎ 00:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achillefs Tzioufas— because it 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.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 22:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of unsolved problems in mathematics. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Randykitty (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. D.Lazard (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring, as you did at List of unsolved problems in mathematics. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. The advice that was left for you in the AfD discussion is worth considering. If you continue to fight back against the usual Wikipedia processes, you are risking an indefinite block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)