# User talk:TakuyaMurata

See the page history to retrieve old talks.

## Articles on constructions of algebraic K-theory spaces and spectra

Hi Taku, I'm a new wikipedian. I'm looking for a project to work on. My speciality is algebraic K-theory. I was browsing over your Q-construction article and propsed S.-construction article: might it not be a better idea to have a catch-all article for "algebraic K-theory space/spectrum"? The current Q-construction article is quite dense and it seems hard to believe that anyone who wants to learn the Q construction in detail would rather follow the article all the way through rather than go to the original source. Let me know. Tkmharris (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Hope you will stay and become a productive member of the math editor community.
To respond, I agree that we need the algebraic K-theory space (this is what Q-construction constructs after all). It would be very natural to have the discussion of the spectra analog in that article too. The article doesn't exist primary because I'm not a specialist, fear the lack of perspective and also because I was busy with other stuff :) Nothing stops you or any other qualified person from creating one. Finally for the Q-construction article, actually I think it is not detailed enough. Yes, it's quite dense and in fact some key proofs are missing. If I remember correctly, some of proofs of fundamental results in algebraic K-theory use the Q-construction in the crucial ways and this should be covered somehow.
Original sources are of course the most authentic references that anyone should turn to when learning the subject. Wikipedia articles do not nor cannot replace the original. The aim is to provide something more accessible or streamlined; we do not aim more.
Anyway, again, I hope you enjoy editing. -- Taku (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

## Ring article

Hi Taku, I know you've put a lot of good work into the article, but there are some problems with the conventions used (as seen on the talk page). "Subring" means different things to different people, and I think it is important to say as much, and make clear that there are two distinct meanings. Mark M (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

On that point, Wikipedia appears to be wigging out at the moment, resulting in my accidental submission of a half-typed edit summary that looks like nonsense. I tried resubmitting a clarification but encountered more errors, so I'm trying here. I just wanted to say that "convention" is not really the right word, but Mark's right that the unital subring requirement is not so universal that we should omit the alternative. So, I think it's worth mentioning "nonunital" subrings. Rschwieb (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
No. In the case of unital rings, I "do" believe a subring is required to be unital and, moreover, with the same multiplicative identity. In other words, the set-theoretic inclusion must be a homomorphism. It's not that some authors require this. (Again in the case of unital rings.) -- Taku (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Some authors will call the even integers a subring of the integers. The set theoretic inclusion is a homomorphism. But the even integers are not a unital ring (and the integers are). What part are you disagreeing with, exactly? Mark M (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me put it in this way. In the category of non-unital rings, an ideal is a subring. But in the category of unital rings, a proper ideal is not a subring. In other words, it's about categorical distinction not convention. -- Taku (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not true, because it still depends on how "subring" is defined. The even integers are an ideal inside the integers, and some authors still call them a subring. Mark M (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see; you are thinking about the categorical definition of a sub-object. Yes, in that case you're right. But that is not how all authors use the term "subring"; that's why it depends on the convention. Mark M (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Od I "do" believe a subring is required to be unital Fortunately, naked opinion is not the driving force of what is included in encyclopedias. This does not authorize you to remove all references to ideas you don't personally like. Including this information does not detract from what you wrote. I'm reinstating the wording I had, with a minor modification of "some" to "most" since that much is true. Finally, if you want to make edits like this which could be considered belligerent, please be honest and label it something other than "clarify". Rschwieb (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

During an edit conflict Mark came up with another revision which also looks pretty good. It recognizes the most common assumption by saying that the unital convention is "usually" in force. Rschwieb (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I still have a problem with "usually" since that implies some authors require a ring to have the multiplicative identity but allow a subring to be non-unital. I don't think that's true. (It has nothing to do my personal taste.) -- Taku (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy if the word "usually" there were removed; unless, of course, somebody knows of an appropriate source that warrants its inclusion. Mark M (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

### Seriously?

Name calling? Forgive me, but what is the point of this poll? If you are only talking about the default convention, then a ring is already assumed to include a unit.. and it's even in the manual of style; I don't think there is disagreement that this should be the default convention in Wikipedia articles generally. The issue that needs resolving is how to write the axioms in the article Ring (mathematics), and how it should be handled within that one article.. but the poll doesn't seem to address that. Mark M (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The point of the poll is to see if there is a majority support for defining a ring to be unital. It's beyond me why it's hard to see this. If you can think of any change in wording to clarify this better, be my guest. I don't think there is objection. But it's not up to me or any editor to make such a judgement. -- Taku (talk)
I just feel like this poll has now ruined the discussion that was taking place about what we should do regarding including or not including an identity. My impression was that a consensus was forming around stating both conventions, say in the definition in Ring (mathematics), but heavily favouring a ring with identity in most of the article (and other articles). See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Mark M (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you suggest we do? -- Taku (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we should close / withdraw the poll, and then continue with the bold, revert, discuss cycle, as before. In particular, making changes to the Ring (mathematics) that most closely reflects current opinions. It seems to me that people are largely in agreement on most issues. While a poll is open, unfortunately, it prevents people from actually making improvements to articles. Mark M (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good course of action. I tend to see this kind of definition/convention issues akin to the article title debates or the mathematical notations issues. Tha is to say, they become problems since reliable sources disagree (e.g., China calling an island; Japan calling it in the other way.) The best and standard way to resolve this issue is through polling and not through discussion. The problem with the discussion is that editors come and go. Accordiningly, the content of the article changes through the normal editing process. That's normal. But we don't want the definition of a ring and such change from time to time. In other words, we need a "clear mandate" to be able to defend a certain editorial decision. In my experience, the polling results tend to have a stronger weight than some "feeling" among edtiors.
I hope you have read my modified note on the polling but the definition given in the article isn't just for that article. Linking ring (mathematics) in an article implicitly defines a ring (to a certain degree); I think we should expect that a reader expects to find the definition of a ring that is used thoughtful Wikipedia; I know it doesn't work that way, but at least that goal we should be seeking. -- Taku (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

## Wikipedia

I've commented on some of the issues with italicizing Wikipedia. I am now speaking as an admin. Don't battle over this in the article or you risk being blocked for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think an admit shouldn't threaten an editor. -- Taku (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

## Blocked

Template:Unblock reviewed -- Taku (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not see a block on this account. Please post, below, the message you see when you try to edit.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This is what I get when I attempted to edit quantum field theory:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from 198.228.200.0/24 has been blocked (disabled) by Maxim for the following reason(s): vandalism This block has been set to expire: 21:54, April 13, 2013. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.

-- Taku (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

## Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

## Changes to Fourier inversion theorem

Hi TakuyaMurata. I've reverted two changes you made to the Fourier inversion theorem article back in January. Since it took me so long to notice and make the change (sorry!) I thought I should notify you here so that you have a chance to defend your changes if you wish. If you want to discuss it, I suggest taking this over to the article's talk page so any other interested parties can join in.

• You Template:Diff that illustrated using the Fourier transform to solve a problem, with the edit summary "It's a simple idea. It's not a concept that requires a diagram to explain". I would tend to agree with you, but I've drawn this diagram in front of students before and for many of them it made a big difference. In one case the student simply couldn't grasp the difference between a function and its Fourier transform until I presented this diagram to her. Admittedly these were the weaker students, but they are part of the readership of Wikipedia.
• You Template:Diff from one using integrals to one in terms of the flip operator. Your proof is much shorter and easier to understand for those like us that understand operators. Even a reasonably clever student that hasn't heard of operators before could reasonably see what your argument means. But many weaker students will find the idea of an operator, which after all is a function that takes functions and turns them into other functions, too hard. When a simpler integral argument exists there's no reason to exclude them. (I put back the integral argument, but also left in the one in terms of the flip operator.)

Reverting these changes has the common theme of making the article more accessible. Bear in mind that Wikipedia articles are meant to appeal to as many people as possible. Obviously with technical mathematics articles there's a limit to how much you can do this, but if there are changes you can make that help without hurting content (like these ones) then we should do it. (As I understand it, even if a change that broadens the appeal does hurt the content then it should still be made, since accessibility is a priority over technical completeness; I had trouble pinning this down in a definite Wikipedia policy though.) Quietbritishjim (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. I don't have any strong opinion on my edits; I just thought it's worth noting there is a simpler argument and thought the idea of transforming a function is a simple one; not needing the diagram. But it didn't occur to me that some students find the idea foreign, as you pointed out. Thus, I'm not going to insist on my revisions. -- Taku (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

## Reliable sources

Be careful about references: they must be reliable sources. Wikis which anyone can edit, such as Wikipedia and Wikia, are not reliable sources, and are totally unsuitable as references. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

## Your Proposed Merges

He there. I recently noticed that you placed tags up on Wikipedia asking for a merge from Wikipedia defense and Wikipedia neologism. While these may have been made in good faith, I have removed them. Consensus from years past has shown that these pages should be seperated. If you want that to change, you can place the tags back up, but state your reasons in the edit summary and on the talkpage at Talk:Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 02:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Complex algebraic variety, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chow's theorem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ

1. REDIRECT Template:• Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Harish-Chandra is a person, not two people, so could you please undo your move of Harish-Chandra module ([1])? Thanks! RobHar (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course! What was I thinking. -- Taku (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey there: through sheer luck, someone happened to mention unique minimal prime ideals and it attracted my attention. They said I might look into 'primary rings' since you get such a ring if you mod a commutative ring by a primary ideal. That lead me to [2], which I guess you may have found. It's interesting that when {0} is primary, the nilradical is prime, but apparently not conversely. I say apparently because that's what the comm-alg wiki said, and I couldn't disprove it in 10 minutes of scribbling... Let me know if you run across an example of a prime nilradical ring where 0 isn't primary! Cheers... Rschwieb (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Let us consider ${\displaystyle K[x,y]/I}$, where K is a field and ${\displaystyle I=\langle x^{2},xy\rangle =\langle x\rangle \cap \langle x,y\rangle ^{2}.}$ I think this answers the question. D.Lazard (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that works. (it's the primary decomposition of I but the radical of I is (x), prime.). The matter is related to the stuff like embedded prime. (it redirects to associated prime, which doesn't really discuss algebraic-geometric aspects.) -- Taku (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
In fact {0} is primary if and only if its nilradical is prime and there is no other associated prime (necessarily embedded if the nilradical is prime). Proof: write the primary decomposition of {0} and use the fact that the nilradical is the intersection of the minimal primes (that are all associated) and that the number of ideals in the primary decomposition equals the number of associated ideals. D.Lazard (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Very cool! The and there is no other associated prime part was the missing ingredient for reversing the direction :) Thank you both for the (motivation for and creation of) the example! Rschwieb (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

## Thanks for your improvement

Hi! Thanks for your improvement of the article "Quantum cohomology ring." I wonder, are the famous story by Manin and Kontsevich on enumerative geometry using Mirror Symmetry written in here, or in "enumerative geometry," or "GW invariant." And I appreciate your vivid activities.--Enyokoyama (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have not heard of the story. Maybe it's discussed somewhere in Wikipedia? -- Taku (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

## An edit at flat module

When trying to confirm this edit, the references I managed to find said that Matsumura's statement included the Noetherian hypothesis. However, this was just done hastily with an internet search, and I lack good commutative resources. Since I think you might have a copy of Commutative Algebra (and probably many other commutative algebra texts), I was hoping you could verify that edit. Thanks! Rschwieb (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You have asked a right person :) I do have Matsumura's commutative algebra, and I have confirmed that "noetherian" is not needed. It's interesting however that in Atiyah-Macdonald, they prove this (free = flat for local rings) for noetherian local ring. Matsumura gives a direct proof (just linear alg.) while AM uses Nakayama's lemma so that's probably why the latter needed "noetherian". I have also added a ref. -- Taku (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic :) Rschwieb (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

## Composition algebra

Hello. Could you review my last edit in composition algebra? It the article developed enough to redirect "Hurwitz algebra" there? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't carefully read Hurwitz's theorem (composition algebras), but from what I can tell the article is mostly limited to the case when the base field is real, which makes sense since it is written from the point of view of operator theory. On the other hand, Hurwitz algebra, as of now, deals with the arbitrary base field (well, non-two-characteristic, if that's an English word :).) So, merger/redirects are inappropriate. -- Taku (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

## Discussion of inclusion of Kyoto Prize in criterion 2

Please participate in the discussion. Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)‎#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

## RfC:Infobox Road proposal

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to Template:Tlx. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:HWY

Nbound (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

## Multiple accounts?

Have you ever edited from any other account? If so, can you say what account? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I have not. -- Taku (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

## Nomination of Mika Narumi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mika Narumi 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/Mika Narumi until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Michitaro (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of things named after Alexander Grothendieck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grothendieck duality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ

1. REDIRECT Template:• Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Mika Narumi

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.

A tag has been placed on Mika Narumi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

## List of lists

Hello.

Please look at this edit. If you know of other items that should be there and are not, could you add those? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about it. The list is actually a duplicate of Category:Lists of things named after mathematicians. Maybe some tech-savvy edtior knows how to synchronize the two. -- Taku (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

## July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Luna's slice theorem may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• subvariety ''W'' such that ''X'' looks locally like ''G''×<sub>''G''<sub>''x''</sub></sub> ''W''. (see [[slice theorem (differential geometry)]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Integral element may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• in ''B'' contract to prime ideals that are not contained in each other in ''A'' incomparability). In particular, the [[Krull dimension]]s of ''A'' and ''B'' are the same. Furthermore, if ''A'' is

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

## Valuation ring

I do not understand your explanation for this revert. You said "unfortunately, looking at a wrong edition, this does not appear in the source". What do you mean by "looking at a wrong edition"? Do you claim that I was looking at a wrong edition, and if so what makes it wrong, and what do you think is the right edition? Or do you mean that you were looking at a wrong edition? More importantly, what do you claim "does not appear in the source"? Is it my accuracy or my honesty which you call into question by that remark? Let me quote some of the text from the page I cite:

(p.37) A valuation ring on F is a subring O of F such that for every x at least one of x and x-1 is in F ... m is the unique maximal ideal in F ... (p.55) fix the field F consider the collection of all valuations on it. This collection has a natural structure of a partially ordered set ... the following conditions are equivalent ... mu⊊mv ... (p.56) we say that valuation u is coarser than v and that v is finer than u. This is a partial order on the collection of all valuations ...

In what way does this fail to support the text? Spectral sequence (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry for confusion in the edit summary; I meant to say I was not sure if I'm reading the same text or not as yours. Anyway, yes, unfortunately, the source does not seem to support the claim made in the lede: valuation rings are maximal elements in th partial ordering of "local subrings", since for example you can have a valuation ring containing one another valuation so that the maximal ideal contracts to the other one, but without being the same. I think the claim is too general, and that's why I put the "citation needed" tag. (maybe it's true if the Krull dimension is one.) -- Taku (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand the book cited does support the definition of "refinement" which I added. The assertion that a valuation ring is a maximal local ring with respect to dominance is Theorem I.6.1A of {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=book }} Spectral sequence (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what I wanted to see (one from Hartshorne.) I now don't have any problem. -- Taku (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

## Nomination of 40 (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 40 (film) 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/40 (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

## WP:UNDO

In case of reverting edits by any user, for example - my in Wikipedia article, please use undo.

Regards, --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that functionality. But sometimes it doesn't work for technical reasons and it is ok to revert an edit manually. I left edit summaries and I believe my intention was clear. -- Taku (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

## Nomination of Maude Apatow for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maude Apatow 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/Maude Apatow until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Beerest355 Talk 19:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

## Discontinuous group

You reverted [3] my addition of the then red link Discontinuous group to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics with the comment "unless I'm missing something I don't think there is such a thing".

• There are some 85 books with "Discontinuous groups" in the title: [4]
• "Discontinuous groups and automorphic forms" is classification 11F of MSC 2010: [5]
• There are over 100 papers on ZMATH with ""Discontinuous group" in the title.

It seems that you have indeed missed something. Spectral sequence (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If I startled you, that was not my intention and I apologize. I just wanted to say: "discontinuous" should refer to the "group action" not a group itself. That some term is in use in literature doesn't make it a good article title. We already have properly discontinuous action and, "to me", it seemed like a good place for the topic. If you know better, please revert my edit or ask me to revert my revert. -- Taku (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Your view, or mine for that matter, on what the term "should refer to" are not so relevant as what the term does actually refer to in the reliable sources we use for writing Wikipedia. I have drawn your attention to dozens of possible sources that might be used. Spectral sequence (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I cannot say I'm familiar with the subject. (So, like I said, if you know better, please just revert my edit or ask me to do so. I don't insist.) But, from what I can tell, there cannot be "discontinuous group" without the group action. "group action" is rather a modern terminology, and that is probably why the term "discontinuous group" is in use in literature. But, to repeat, that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. It is up to Wikipedia editors to decide how to organize article materials; it cannot be free from my or your view. Wikipedia is far more than just an abbreviation of literature. Editorial judgements are involved. We all may not be in agreement, but, obviously, the editorial decisions cannot be free from editors' views (we cannot be dictated by literature.) -- Taku (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

## flat module

Hi: I'm looking at this. Could you consider integrating that statement and citation with the paragraph below it which already mentions this information? This would improve the organization and reduce redundancy in the section. Thanks. Rschwieb (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I mean absolutely no offense, but that section can definitely use some reorganization. Yes, as you pointed out, I missed that a piece of fact I inserted is redundant. To my defense, I didn't know what a perfect ring was and I bet I'm not the only one among the readers of the article. I also changed the wording a bit, so presumably the sentence is not completely redundant. Do you think it's still unnecessary? The point of it is to give a non-finite case. As for the organization, I like the diagram and one way to organize the section is basically to put the materials in parallel with the diagram; i.e., discuss free implies projective but explain when it can be reversed, with the links to theorems (the name "Kaplansky" cannot be omitted!) and preferably counterexamples. -- Taku (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I totally understand and agree. Not many people know about perfect rings, and part of my motivation for suggesting integration was this problem. I didn't mean that your contribution should disappear completely :)
I think using Artinian rings as an example, along with your valuable citation, is the right way to go. (I'm not sure that mentioning the local bit explicitly is necessary though, since that answers "when are projective modules free?" rather than "when are flat modules projective?"). If you have the energy, take a whack at reorganizing it and including the links to theorems. I'll keep an eye on it and suggest counterexamples if you need them. Rschwieb (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Me and Veronica

The article Me and Veronica has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No content, no references, no sign of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Template:Tlc notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Template:Tlc will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Sally (2000 film)

The article Sally (2000 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced and offers almost no information.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Template:Tlc notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Template:Tlc will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

## WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

## September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Glossary of stack theory may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• (See also the reference section at [[stack (mathematics)|stack]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

## What happens?

Dear Takuya! What happens?　You codes are correct. But because there are errors in this article in reference I didnot edit but only recompiled it! Why? --Enyokoyama (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow you. I made some typographical change to improve readability. By the way, I speak Japanese :) So you can write to me in Japanese, if you like. -- Taku (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I do not know the reason of errors but after compiling only the part of "examples" there are no error! Of cource, along your codes.--Enyokoyama (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

## Homotopy limit?

Hi Taku,

I noticed that you recently worked on some model categorical articles here, which is great since most of them don't even exist yet. Are you interested in working on homotopy limits and colimits? I started a first draft of a first section [6] here. If you feel like it, just move it over there and I might try to contribute more to it. Best, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I think our model category is fairly good; in fact, I first learned the topic from that article. Bbeyond that, yes, there are not even articles on some topics: Bousfield localization was an example. I started it just so either anon or some other would edit it. Seeing your edit, it turned out to be a surprisingly good idea. If we were to consider nlab to be a competitor, then we're still pretty behind. But, seeing something like this, Wikipedia do get used and so it's important to have good comprehensive covergage. I'm not sure how much I personally work on this area. For one thing, I'm not qualified (though I do have Hirschhorn's model category book. I do wonder anyone has fun reading it.) Taku (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

## Regarding changes to the article on Wikipedia itself

Hello.

I've noticed that you've reverted the hyphen I added in the Wikipedia article, and would like to say the following: (1) if you prefer that there not be a hyphen, that's fine by me; (2) I suppose the correction I made was purely one related to stylization, thus the hyphen isn't necessary to maintain proper grammatical syntax; and (3), I'm open to further discussion on the topic if you please.

For your convenience, I've copied the sentence in question and pasted it below.

"Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven style of encyclopedia building and the presence of a large body of unacademic content have received extensive attention in print media."

Thanks,

~zziccardi (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Right. I didn't think it was incorrect before (whence my revert). But then again the hyphen one is also correct. This is such a minor style issue and I don't have a strong opinion about it. Maybe some other editors have opinions. Anyway, I undid my undoing. -- Taku (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Cocycle category

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.

A tag has been placed on Cocycle category, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. —John Cline (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

## Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dan Murphy (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2013 (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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Murphy (talkcontribs)

Five reverts in 24 hours. You're lucky I'm involved or I'd block you for WP:3RR right now. Seriously - stuff like that needs cites, it's controversial enough and strictly speaking, unsourced content that stays incited should be removed. But blindly reverting against consensus, as you have, is not the way to go - Alison 04:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

TakuyaMurata, if you respond at WP:AN3#User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Dan Murphy (Result: ) and promise to wait for consensus there is still a chance you can avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see the result of the complaint here which contains a warning for you. If you resume this type of edit without getting consensus you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

## nerves

Taku, 今日は

You just wrote:

The nerve of a symmetric monoidal category is an infinite loop space.

where did you hear this? I am really really tired right now, going to bed, and cannot even make sense of this. (watashi wa Nihongo benkyoshiteimasu) User:Linas (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I've just added a reference. It also appears in nlab. -- Taku (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Atsuro Watabe

The article Atsuro Watabe has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Lenticel (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Sarina Suzuki

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 to inform you that a tag has been placed on Sarina Suzuki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Babita arora 09:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Urs Schreiber

The article Urs Schreiber has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Michig (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Ross Street

The article Ross Street has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Michig (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

## Categories and notability

You have been creating many articles about mathematicians, but not adding them to the appropriate categories. Please add categories when you do this. Among other things, doing so will allow the articles to be found and added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity‎ so that other Wikipedia mathematics editors can find them.

Additionally, when you create articles, please be sure to put something in the article that non-expert editors can recognize as evidence that the subject passes the criteria in WP:PROF, and do not remove notability tags as you did at Urs Schreiber and Ross Street without making sure there is evidence of notability in the article. In the case of Street, such evidence is easy to find (he is a fellow of two major societies) and putting it in from the start would have prevented some disagreements. In the case of Schreiber, it seems unlikely to me that he meets the criteria of WP:PROF and unless evidence of notability can be found and added to the article then it should probably be deleted.

And finally, although I do appreciate your effort in filling in the missing names listed in Category talk:Fellows of the American Mathematical Society and removing those names once there is an article for the subject, please do not remove a name from the list until the article has been included in Category:Fellows of the American Mathematical Society. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, math articles should be left to math editors; that will avoid wasting both of our times and their times, but anyway you're right about notability. I will also try to be more mindful about categories. -- Taku (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

## Nomination of List of junior colleges in Japan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of junior colleges in Japan 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/List of junior colleges in Japan until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Cnilep (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Haruka Kohara

The article Haruka Kohara has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Blethering Scot 19:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Goro Noguchi

The article Goro Noguchi has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. 14:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Noriko Eguchi

The article Noriko Eguchi has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. 14:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

## Zero ring

Thank you for completing the merge of "trivial ring" into "zero ring"! I was actually intending to wait at least a week to see if anyone objected, as I think one usually does for merges, but since it's now done, let's just leave it. Feel free to delete this message after reading. Ebony Jackson (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I tend to be bold with this sort of things, knowing my edit can be easily undone, but also, as pointed out, there was really no point having two separate articles. The only mystery is why no one noticed this before, including myself :) -- Taku (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There's no mystery: look at the edit history of zero ring! Certainly there was no point in having two separate articles, but the question that needed discussion was whether the article should be called trivial ring or zero ring. That is why it is best with merges to wait at least a week, even though with more minor edits it is OK to be bold. By the way, the merge is not quite complete since there are many places on Wikipedia where the terminology "trivial ring" should be changed to "zero ring". I'll try to address this when I have a chance, but if you'd like to help with this, it would be most welcome! Ebony Jackson (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
(Ok, I admit I didn't study the history, and, yes, a closer look solved the mystery.) In any case, I've got to disagree with that the waiting is better. In my view, it is very important to get the organization right, to avoid duplicate efforts. For example, at any moment, an anonymous editor may add/remove some materials, sometimes in a very substantial manner, without realizing he is duplicating some materials already exist. (By the way, this is a primary reason why I've recently been trying to translate several mathematician articles from other editions.) I think this is why I tend to be bold with organization-type edits. Once we get "major" things right, "minor" parts get sorted gradually, sort of by the "nature of wiki". (This is also why I think our efforts (inc. mine) should be focused on ring (mathematics), since, not only it is highly visible, it sets the definitions/notations for the remaining ring-related articles.) As for this "particular" case, I don't have a strong opinion. -- Taku (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply! It's great that you spend time improving these mathematical articles; I can see from your edits that you know the math better than most other editors. I too think that is important to get the organization right. Maybe you are right that it is better to bold even with major edits such as merges, but sooner or later you might upset other editors if I am reading correctly that the Wikipedia policy (see the link in my previous message) is to wait at least a week in such cases. If you disagree with this policy, maybe you should argue there to have it changed. As for me, generally I don't mind having a discussion first when making major changes that someone such as you might reasonably disagree with, since usually these edits are not so urgent that they cannot wait a few days. Ebony Jackson (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Akira Mitake

Hello, TakuyaMurata. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Akira Mitake, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Akira Mitake to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

## Autopatrolled

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have removed the WP:Autopatrolled right from your account. This does not reflect upon the good faith you invest in expanding the encyclopedia, but there are too many issues concerning your created articles. As a consequence I feel they should still be subject to review by New Page Patrollers. For a few examples, please see:

If you believe I have made an error, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

See below. -- Taku (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

## New articles

Thanks for starting some new articles on Japanese entertainers. Some of the subjects do deserve articles on Wikipedia, but I would ask you to please stop creating articles if they only have one sentence with no references. Those will be deleted from Wikipedia due to policies about WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Several of your articles have been deleted because of this or have been tagged for deletion. I have had to spend the last couple of days saving several of them like Sarina Suzuki, Atsuro Watabe, Noriko Eguchi, and Goro Noguchi. I am getting kind of tired of rescuing your articles, so from now on please only create articles if you are prepared to make the effort to provide sources and evidence of notability. Thanks. Michitaro (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say the problems have to do with these policies you cited, not the creation of these articles. There is really no need to delete the articles unless there is a question on notability. In all the cases, I made a link to corresponding Japanese wikipedia articles, which provides the further information and in particular establish the notability. It is quite unfortunate that Wikipedia doesn't want contributions, but anyway that's not my issue. -- Taku (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello TakuyaMarata. See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Our current practice is that BLP articles created since March, 2010 that do not provide a source to verify at least one statement in the article will be routinely deleted. Also, we can't rely on information in the Japanese Wikipedia, just like we can't cite other English Wikipedia articles as a source. Wikipedia is crowd-sourced and not 'reliable' by our definition. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Murata-san, I think you are looking at this the wrong way. It's not that Wikipedia does not want contributions, it's that it wants contributions that are reliable and encyclopedic. Again, I thank you for starting articles on important people, but the vast majority of editors looking at those one sentence articles would ask them to be deleted because there is no proof these people even exist--the link to the JP Wikipedia doesn't help those who can't read Japanese and even then it's not a reliable source. I think this is also a question of civility within the Wikipedia community. By creating these one sentence articles, you are virtually saying that you don't care enough about these articles to work on them and that you are passing the burden of supporting these articles on to other people. 日本語で言うなら、責任を放棄して他人に負担や迷惑をかけています。You seem to do a good job creating math-related articles. Can you put some of the same energy into creating these entertainment-related articles? Michitaro (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Yumie Nishiogi

The article Yumie Nishiogi has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. 16:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

## Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Taku,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott talk 13:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Taku! Ebony Jackson (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I can't believe it's been 10 years. (Of course, when I started I didn't even know calculus, not even English.) I have remained to be fairly active here. I wonder about the next "10" years. -- Taku (talk)

## December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Q-construction may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
• :$H_p((B(S^{-1}S)^0) \subset H_p(B(S^{-1}S)) = \pi_0(BS)^{-1} H_p(BS) = H_p(BS)[e^{-1}].$

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

## Nomination of Abel function for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abel function 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/Abel function until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Fiber functor

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 to inform you that a tag has been placed on Fiber functor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Nechlison (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Keith Bunin

The article Keith Bunin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Both sources appear to be blog-like. No Reliable Sources, no indication of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Template:Tlc notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Template:Tlc will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 10:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

## Wikipedia article traffic

Back in April 2013 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

## Internet service listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Internet service. Since you had some involvement with the Internet service redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 13:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

## Siege of Port Arthur

Hi, the en.wp article Siege of Port Arthur seems to be based in part on ja:坂の上の雲 (please read the ja.wp article for details on the fictional parts). If you have time, please take a look and try to correct it. Shii (tock) 19:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of JNode

The article JNode has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An article about a now inactive software development project; last software release by the project was in 2009. No significant coverage in independent sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Template:Tlc notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Template:Tlc will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

## Formatting Changes

Which articles are you referring to??

The one on valuation ring clearly needed the updates I did and more I mean look at the notation for algebraic closure, or the fact that you have both Z and ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} }$. I also moved a proof in brackets to end notes (refs).

The one on Noether normalization lemma is even worse with large latex formula (without proper syntax like \left and \right) in the middle of the text.

At least check what the edits are really about instead of treating articles like your personal domain you need to defend from alien editors ....

99.241.166.168 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of any particular article. Of course, some articles can use "minor" updates of notations for clarity and consistencies. But there is no need for the conversion to mathvar. -- Taku (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)