User talk:Guillermind81

Hello, Guillermind81, and

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Ninney (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Hello I was wondering why the changes were made under the Hellenistic and Roman period in the Greek mathematics article, I liked the way you rephrased some of the stuff but not all of it, and also wondering where some of your citations are.SouryaMo (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)SouryaMo[reply]

Overall, the article provided good information, but some of it was overtly detailed for an overview of Greek mathematics. For instance, the discussion about Pythagoras and his supposed discoveries took over much space at the expense of mentioning other, more credible figures such as Hippasus or Archytas. If the reader wishes to know more about Pythagoras, they can certainly click the link to the Pythagoras article, which covers all that information and more. I used the same principle for the Hellenistic and Roman periods. I will add more citations to these sections, as I do have them but haven't been able to find the time to do it. Guillermind81 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guillermind81! Your additions to

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double
  inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners
  , for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images.
  non-free content criteria
  in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. (copied from http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/science-and-technology/physics-biographies/christiaan-huygens) Thank you. firefly ( t · c ) 16:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback. I'll revise my edits to avoid any copyright violations and cite as much as possible.Guillermind81 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

i appreciate your thoughtful opinion, but i think you misunderstood my position.

1. i never interpreted your comments to diminish the work of archimedes. 2. i never thought the listed individuals would detract from his overall influence, i was merely stating my opinion that i thought it would (without assuming your intention). 3. the simplest way of viewing my response is this: i don't think the work needs to show similarity to demonstrate influence.

history is chock-full of artists in one area being influenced by another.

i'm not sure if acting is an art, but if it is then there are many actors inspired by musicians. this is the easiest example

what i was trying to convey is that it is very difficult to extend the work of archimedes, or directly build on it, because his work is primitive.

i do believe gauss' work is a foundation for proving much of archimedes work (in a framework that most modern mathematicians accept, i.e. dry euclid-style proofs), but this is original research for now.

i appreciate you sharing those links, and while i appreciate the authors' efforts, those would not satisfy an active mathematician in a the related field in terms of 'proof'. they are used to something much more rigid.

archimedes work is deceptive in its simplicity. it would be impossible for any mathematician (including gauss) to show a direct relationship whilst satisfying the criteria of a modern mathematical proof.

i will refrain from calling myself a mathematician as some still want to say i am not, but i do have a reasonable amount of experience in the areas related to calculus. and this is what i was drawing on.

if you think about it, modern calculus is just a comprehensive collection of works demonstrating Archimedes' method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you said, including the part about the calculus, as the Archimedean inspiration that led to its birth is undeniable. Alas! I think you nailed it when you said our differences come down to whether or not similarity (at a minimum) demonstrates influence. I can see why you will say no, but I can also see the risk of reducing everything (and everyone) to Archimedes. As a mathematician, perhaps, that's an acceptable risk, but as a historian, it is not. Thanks for a great discussion. Guillermind81 (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll be remiss if I do not mention two other papers that, without being as exacting in their proofs as one may wish, nonetheless betray an Archimedean influence:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0723086907000540/pdfft?md5=fd209fc448b11a2498e57cd602444666&pid=1-s2.0-S0723086907000540-main.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0723086916300317/pdfft?md5=db40311478c990cbc19b487548d468af&pid=1-s2.0-S0723086916300317-main.pdf

Hello Guillermind81,

Thank you for your response. I accept your comment about putting my input into Footnotes. The problem is that I am novice in Wikipedia editing and know how to do very basic edits. Since the article does not have already a Footnote section, it is a very HUUUUge project for me to create one and add my info in there. Furthermore, I have no new citations except those which are in Maxwell's article in Wikipedia. I thought that the info HERE is not complete (i.e there was further development with Maxwell..) so i thought that it is appropriate to add it. It is all in Maxwell's article and I linked to it. Bottom line, due to lack of my experience, if you think this is not acceptable, you can discard my entire input. Thanks anyway.

I have added a note and a reference in the appropriate section. Ideally, it is preferable to remain focus on Huygens' work or his contributions rather than getting off-topic (otherwise you'll end up with an unwieldy article as Huygens' work covered a wide range of topics in mathematics and physics). If a reader wishes to know more about Saturn's rings, they could certainly click on the link to Wikipedia's article on the same, which has more than enough information on Maxwell and others. Guillermind81 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

The article

The article Christiaan Huygens you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Christiaan Huygens for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christiaan Huygens, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first pendulum clock was invented in 1657 by Christiaan Huygens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christiaan Huygens. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Christiaan Huygens), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comments didn't come across as too harsh. I think that the article would benefit from peer review before another FAC. You can get reviews by contacting FAC regulars or Wikiprojects. (t · c) buidhe 16:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I welcomed the feedback; it is important to make sure the article is up to par. I will reach out to one of the FAC mentors when I get a chance. Thanks. --Guillermind81 (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created a talk section regarding some edits you made on the John von Neumann page, do you have any agreements/disagreements with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by STEMster42 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few points again if you don't mind reviewing them thanks. STEMster42 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi once again, did a little bit of reordering if you can take a look when you have some time, cheers. STEMster42 (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for the information. The page was recently created and I just began the process of adding content. Please allow me at least to the end of the day before considering deletion. Guillermind81 (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Guillermind. When I nominated the article for speedy deletion, it contained only a few non-sensical words. The article looks promising, but still needs some cleanup, and most importantly, it needs references. Articles in the mainspace are required to be sourced. Even when working on a draft, it's best to come up with the sources and then build the article from there. I've reverted the speedy deletion nomination, but I'll be draftifying the article. You can work on it as a draft and publish it when you add the sources. Keep up the good work! -- Mooonswimmer 20:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. Guillermind81 (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

Hi Guillermind81, I provided retroactive attribution in the edit summary of this diff for the content you copied from Christiaan Huygens. For future copying, just be sure to note it in the edit summary, with a wikilink to the original page. This is needed to satisfy attribution requirements as described at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I realize that you originally wrote much of that content in the Huygens article, but at least some of it was contributed by others (for example, Special:Diff/720791868 by 72.69.32.68 in 2016.) Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I will keep that in mind going forward. Best, Guillermind81 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guillermind81, I see that you have contributed to this page over July 2022. I trust that you are indeed qualified. Could you at least ensure that there are no spelling mistakes, for instance in the sentence "Perhaps more concerning is that there is no definition of centre of gravity anywhere in Archimedes' extant works, make it difficult to see the logical structure of some of his arguments in On the Equilibrium of Planes." Make? Or making? This sentence is interesting in that it represents your very distinct take on this page. It feels loose, and slightly opinionated, and contradicts the very lucid explanation that is provided on the Wiki page itself. Further, and more worryingly, you seem to take the very distinct approach, throughout your contribution, that it is a "mere opinion" that the proof for non-commensurate values does not stand. Is this from Codex C? I would request/suggest that you row back from that position as it is likely incorrect. It's something that one can check oneself logically. Some of your contributions make it slightly more readable, and the piece on Legacy does read well. However, I don't see the value of the sentence I've quoted above, even after the spelling correction. "Perhaps more concerning..." That sounds to me like two contributors arguing on Wikipedia. Riviel Netz discusses this point in detail (re centres of gravity), it probably deserves a separate paragraph. Which is to say that its raison d'etre is not to merely undermine some other carefully constructed point. SamCardioNGO (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. I did not mean to pass my personal judgment on the proof; my intention instead was to make the reader aware that there are some scholars who had raised questions regarding the validity of Propositions 6-7 of book one, including the absence of a definition for centre of gravity. I'll correct the grammatical error and re-word the sentence so that it conveys my intent better. Guillermind81 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Guillermind81. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that "mostly from the 5th century BC to the 6th century AD" seems like a fair summary, so thanks for putting that back with a couple of references. I like Sidoli's work (this one and others) especially because he is typically careful to clearly distinguish what is known and how, what is conjectured by whom and on what grounds, and what is pure myth.

In the future would you mind leaving off the "minor edit" tickmark if you make substantive changes, even if they are small in scope, and also including a clear edit summary? This date change, while a small edit, doesn't really seem like a "copyedit", nor is it an insignificant change.

Again thanks, and cheers. –jacobolus (t) 07:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and I'll keep that in mind next time. -- Guillermind81 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]