Gatekeeping content

Hi Sławomir, the text you keep removing from the Jacobian Conjecture is specifically intended to allow a non-mathematician to see part of what what the conjecture and it's counterexample mean. It's not intended and does not claim to be a rigorous explanation. It is from a valid and widely read publication, and authored by a tenured professor. It don't thinks it's reasonable to just dismiss it because it does not appeal to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyLittleMonkey (talk • contribs) 16:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The right place to bring this up is Talk:Jacobian conjecture. This is essentially a self-published source, and the author is not an expert on the Jacobian conjecture, so none of the exceptions to using self-published sources seems to apply. You can get another opinion at Talk:Jacobian conjecture. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Circle group, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Group algebra was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Obivious alterations

Independent of it, it is obvious Wikipedia recommends being more precise. You are taking an article of a subfield of mathematics and generalizing it to the most general field. It is ridiculous; with that, you could remove the template and make the same with article being more precise too.

Again, order theory or concepts are used in the entire mathematics just because mathematics is using order theory. So, for example, a problem of mathematics has order theory, and order theory has subfields (cyclic order, set order, and so on). QuantumNinus (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The first sentence of the article is supposed to be read by a general reader. Typically that means it will be less precise. That is what WP:TECHNICAL recommends, for example. In this case a general reader will probably never have even heard of order theory, but they will have heard of mathematics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Methods of matrix inversion moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Methods of matrix inversion. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and you are experienced enough that you know we require sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Methods of matrix inversion has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Methods of matrix inversion. Thanks! Ldm1954 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Citizen Vigilante

Which conservative source "panned" the film? R. Bardghji (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The version you just deleted referenced The National Review, a long-running conservative publication of record. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Award

	WikiSenior
	For twenty years of being a Wikipedian. LightningThrower (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reverts

At Cantor's diagonal argument. This person was reported at WP:AN3 and I responded there. He has his own critique of standard mainstream analysis, which he enthusiastically adds to multiple articles. I blocked one IP but he'll probably continue. Semiprotecting all our analysis articles might not be practical. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)