Talk:Preda Mihăilescu

message: This article seems to be a self-promotional article especially as it has little external sources and he claims a theorem is called by his name. No proof that I've found. Thoughts? Skirts89 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the article does pass notability guidelines (see WP:ACADEMIC) but might need some COI cleanup. The source I would like to see is proof that Catalan's Conjecture is actually called Mihăilescu's theorem. Do we have an accessible copy of this book? Overzwotan (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can agree that he passes WP:ACADEMIC, we could at least take care of one of the maintenance templates that seem to be causing so much melodrama and stress for the article's subject. Which criterion do we think he meets? His communication so far leaves a lot to be desired, so I am afraid I might not be able to help much more than that. Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Google Scholar results for ""Mihailescu Theorem" show a ton of results, both for Catalan-Mihailescu theorem and Lesniewski-Mihailescu theorem. I think he would meet #1, "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Schazjmd (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I'd support that rationale. I had searched the subject's name in GS and came up with lukewarm results, but that is often true even for notable mathematicians. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I removed the notability tag. I'm still not clear on what else about the article's edits has upset the editor. I invited the editor to state the specific changes they think should be made here on this talk page but they haven't edited since. Schazjmd (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: At Tijdeman's theorem, an editor piped a link from the redirect of Mihailescu's theorem to "this theorem", probably to avoid redundancy (the sentence immediately before that mentioned the subject's name). And apparently there was an offensive mention of self-promotion, either in an edit summary or on a talk page. I think that's about it. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I fixed the pipe. Not because of this complaint, but because the preceding sentence started with "Tijdeman's theorem", so the next sentence saying "This theorem" would be read as still meaning Tijdeman's. Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I am withdrawing from further conversation on this matter, so as to avoid tiring you any further. Whatever lessons, punishments, or public humiliations you seek against other editors, you can pursue them without my assistance. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this pass notability standards? 

message: As you well see, the header was brought by false insinuations by Skirt89, more than a year ago. He is blocked, known for troll attitudes. You can verify that all claims about me are correct and appear in other Wikies. Yet, you add request upon request, to continue this state of doubt and false uncertainty. Sorry for you, but there is no additional literature needed -- there is only a need for who ever sticks such requests like "needs additional citations for verification" to rather throw an eye on the existing literature. I know it suffices, because I know the literature. And you can find out with no effort, by seeing that other Wikies never raised doubts, while having the same statements and the same literature: simply because they were not visited by trolls! 
One should be specific: you believe to need verification, very well: be explicit, what do you want to verify and in what way, what literature do you ask for? If you really want a positive result, you must be explicit. The reason why this hell goes on is because nobody has the guts to draw the conclusion: "Skirt89 was a troll, he brought us on a dead end, suggested problems that never existed, and we are afraid to recognize there are no problems". And because nobody goes with the job to the end, my biography is in a deplorable state, since 18 months and more. So I am victim of this negligence and lack of responsibility. Thank you for the advances made in one day. Great. Go to the end!  Think what you want to verify, and what literature you want. I know you need no additional one, since I know the biography. But you folks need to reach that conclusion too, since I am not allowed, right?! So please -- think! And know the job will only be finished when this header disappears, and the page turns into the normal state. Maybe with a picture in place, like on the German page, for instance. Thank you!
PMPredaMi (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You will notice that User:Schazjmd and User:Larry Hockett made the decision to remove the notability tag, which I have fully supported from the beginning. The remaining header simply indicates that we need more secondary sources to support assertions within the article. Primary sources are not enough. This is normal and should not be taken personally. I will be recusing myself from any further involvement with this surprisingly hot-button topic. Overzwotan (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please put an end to this damaged page!!! 

message: User:Schazjmd, sir -- you have removed the various evidence of the fact that the malignous interference of Skirt89 was not reverted, but rather continued, for whatever reasons, for too long a time. You seem to have the rights. But it is a discussion concerning me, and I decide to remove the pointless discussion that followed. Who are you to decide to remove one evidence, and revert removal of the other -- and if you are endowed with the rights to do so, do you think it is correct? 
I understood that nobody here is willing to recognize an error, I appologize for having believed for a moment that at least someone has the interest of improving Wikipedia above the ego -- my error, why should you. But now it is time to remove the pointless discussion. Period. So please stop reverting at your own choice! Best wishes --- PMPredaMi (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't that. Past discussions are kept. They serve as a record of why certain decisions were made, and even if no decision was made, they serve as record of what has been previously discussed. Meters (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion that leads to no insights should be removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Preda Mihăilescu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061112162639/http://www-math.uni-paderborn.de/~preda/ to http://www-math.uni-paderborn.de/~preda/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: These remarks above are incompetent points of view. The biography was built up by professional mathematicians, with all references required to certify the
given claims. Proved conjectures are named after the person who proved them, always, in mathematics. The "Fermat Last Conjecture" is refereed presently as "Wiles's Theorem", and the Catalan Conjecture as "Mihailescu Theorem", doubting of this is ok -- but then a correct person verifies personally, if there is reason for 
a serious suspicion. Especially because common sense should suggest that the initiators of the page should have taken care of the issue, and it is solved in the
biography. Which it was. The two Skirts89 and Overzwotan not only took the freedom to pretend suspicion, without verification -- i.e. without getting a hard copy
of the biography, where they could find dozen of times the term they had doubts about. Here is the screenshot of such a page:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z9iMojc9QUKhE3XPUUHBzbkZukNwB5m5/view?usp=sharing.
Worse than not reading the bibliography: short after I informed the second perpetrator about the fact that the term "Mihailescu Theorem" is used also on Wikipedia, he maliciously went to the respective page, and erased the occurring. This is not community work, this vandalism and ill faith, and should be rapidly blocked from harming Wiki! Here is the evidence this was done yesterday, after I informed him of the existence of the term. curprev 23:05, 19 January 2020‎ Overzwotan talk contribs‎ 4,285 bytes +13‎ undothank.  (on the history page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tijdeman%27s_theorem.
There is absolutely no reason why the work of professional specialists be doubted by accidental users who not only have no competence (which is mostly the case fro every one of us, outside our specialty), but are so immoral as to spread suspicions without any minimal verification, thus raising themselves above the professionals who created the page to start with. It is inconceivable that such events are possible on Wikipedia, and the experience should teach some serious lessons. It is to be expected that all this wrong doing will be corrected in the next 48 hours, and those who produced the harm apologize here, were the public harm was done. 
Thank you!PredaMi (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The question about the standards was never verified by the perpetrators above,