User talk:Dominic3203

Citation bot

Why did you run the citation bot through all of the draft pages in my userspace? I do find that a little odd to do that without asking me. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is still open, please would you be able to come to ANI and discuss why you did this? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dominic3203: There are two choices: stop editing pages in other editor's userspace, or join the ANI discussion and justify your plans. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hello, Dominic3203,

I see you have returned to editing but you haven't come by ANI to address concerns about your editing. Please do so the next time you log on to the project or you risk losing your editing privileges. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Progress trap, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Instrument.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have not corrected the mistake you were told about in the message above, despite having made several other edits since it was posted here. It is best to avoid making that mistake, by checking that any link you are thinking of posting links to an appropriate target before deciding to add it; if, however you do add a disambiguation link to an article and you are told you have done so, please go back and correct it.

I also noticed that in the same edit you did a number of examples of what is known as "overlinking". Wikilinks can be very helpful, but it is a mistake to add too many wikilinks to articles. Generally speaking, a wikilink should be added only if it provides information which is likely to help readers of the article in which the link is placed to understand content of that article, or provide further information closely connected to the subject of that article. That normally means either a link to an article which explains words or expressions in the article containing the link, or a link to an article which provides background information which is necessary in order to understand content of the article containing the link. Linking to articles in other situations is not just unnecessary, it can actually be harmful, because research has established that the more irrelevant, or only slightly relevant, links there are in a page, the less likely readers are to find the ones which they might find useful. Thus, for example, nobody reading the article Progress trap is likely to need to consult the article Instrument in order to understand the content of Progress trap, so linking to Instrument is not likely to be helpful.

On this occasion I have reverted your edit, but it will help if you can bear these points in mind. JBW (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting the message above, I have seen that you have previously received a number of disambiguation link notifications, which you have deleted. Please don't ignore disambiguation link notifications. JBW (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sleepsort (November 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 1AmNobody24 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sleepsort and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nobody (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dominic3203! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Nobody (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sleep sort (November 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by 1AmNobody24 were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sleep sort and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nobody (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

roots of adjacent squares mod p*q(large)

Hi there, Thanks for your recent edit of my personal page(math blog).

For your interest if you consider the residue to be a complex number and apply the inverse of the complex number equation, you can get the roots of adjacent squares instantly no matter how big the modulus is. (You get adjacent squares, you can't pick the adjacent squares, note)

a is the difference of the roots o is the difference of the squares try222a[a_, pq1_, o_] :=

Module[{a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9, a10, pq}, pq = pq1;
 a1 = Mod[PowerMod[a, -1, pq] PowerMod[-o, 1, pq], pq];
 a2 = Mod[(a + a1) PowerMod[2, -1, pq], pq];
 a3 = Mod[-(a - a2) , pq];
 Print[{{a2, a3}, {Mod[a2^2, pq], Mod[a3^2, pq]}}];
 root1 = a2;
 root2 = a3;
 square1 = Mod[a2^2, pq];
 square2 = Mod[a3^2, pq];]

aa is sum of the roots o is difference of the squares

try222b[aa_, p_, q_, o_] :=

Module[{a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9, a10, pq},
 pq = p q;
 a1 = PowerMod[aa, -1, pq];
 a2 = Mod[o^2 a1 + o aa, pq];
 a3 = Mod[a2 PowerMod[2 o, -1, pq], pq];
 a4 = Mod[aa - a3, pq];
 Print[{{a3, a4}, {Mod[a3^2, pq], Mod[a4^2, pq]}}];
      ]

calling this routine we get squares 2 apart

try222b[1011, 41, 73, 2]

{{1179,2825},{1289,1287}}

now we get squares 6 apart

try222b[1011, 41, 73, 6]

Endo999 (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p and q parameters can be changed to pq quite easily Endo999 (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Endo999 Greetings, I wasn't aware of the content while editing the TeX. However, you mentioned something similar to my current project (I posted online^[1]), and I'd like to explore this further. Specifically, I'm interested in finding huge triangular numbers and using it to compute large multiplication, by the identity Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle a × b = T ( a + b ) - ( T ( a ) + T ( b ) ) } , ${\displaystyle T(n)}$ is the nth triangular number. Could you please provide more details about the connection? This could potentially save considerable time and effort. Dominic3203 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have my own Math blog too 😄

https://quora.com/Dominic-Shum Dominic3203 (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about triangular numbers, but this process can be used in modular arithmetic when you know 1) the sum or subtraction of the roots and 2) the subtraction of the squares.

the actual complex inverse equation in modular arithmetic is:

(x+(y/i)*i)^(-1) mod p*q=== (x-y)/(x^2+(1/(-1))y^2) mod p*q

now if you then know the denominator (the difference of the squares) then you have

(x+y) and (x-y)

from these two numbers you can determine x and y

Good luck with your numeric task. Let me know if you suceed.

Endo999 (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop indiscriminately running citation bot across broad swaths of pages

Many of the recent resulting changes to math articles are no-ops, some are adding totally pointless extra metadata of no obvious benefit to readers, and many of the rest seem generally trivial and cosmetic. But they're cluttering up watchlists. Is there some kind of human involvement in these edits (e.g. checking the links being added for relevance) beyond just clicking a button to sic the bot on pages? User:Citation bot explicitly says: "Editors who activate this bot should carefully check the results to make sure that they are as expected", but it seems to me that you are not doing this. –jacobolus (t) 20:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Citation bot/Archive 40#Can we please not add bibcode when it contains no useful information? Dominic3203 (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Error in periodical name change

Referring to this recent edit of Edward A. Kramer:

13:20, 13 January 2025 Citation bot talk contribs  17,425 bytes +35  Alter: publisher, pages, journal. Add: doi, date. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Dominic3203 | Linked from User:AlexNewArtBot/CleanupSearchResult | #UCB_webform_linked 53/2048

The periodical's name is netWorker. Your bot clumsily changed the name to NetWorker. A look at the actual reference, and the journal's website, would have kept a human from doing this. I have corrected the error, and hope that you will not touch this article again.

Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sleep sort

Hello, Dominic3203. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sleep sort, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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. FireflyBot (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sleep sort (April 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ScrabbleTiles was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sleep sort and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ScrabbleTiles (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste reviewers' time by resubmitting declined drafts without taking any steps to address the reasons for their having been declined. Doing so takes reviewers away from reviewing drafts which actually need reviewing. JBW (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot error

In this edit you used Citation bot to damage a citation to a book by adding erroneous citation data (for a review of that book). This kind of edit is extremely damaging; it is only by sheer coincidence and good luck that I caught and repaired it. I see that you have had multiple other complaints about your use of this bot; you obviously need to be much more careful. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.JBL (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

You have been blocked for one month from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have failed to take on board the advice you were given at ANI last October and have continued your disruptive use of CitationBot. Cullen328 (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dominic3203 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It is just unreasonable for any user to be blocked using idiot-proof tools with minimal inputs, especially Citation Bot. I doubt bans like this would have deterrent effects and other drawbacks as well. Besides, these kind of tools are supposed to be fail-safe, and bypasses like {{bots|deny=Citation Bot}} should be imposed while reverting edits from now on. Dominic3203 (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dominic3203 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, and thank you for reviewing my request. I understand now that my edits violated Wikipedia’s policies, as I refused to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. I also acknowledge that my edits may have seemed to ignore any warnings and suggestions, which also goes against Wikipedia’s policies.

To be clear, I have no reason to abuse Citation Bot by any means. I failed to adhering strictly to Wikipedia’s competence is required (WP:COMPETENCE) guideline.

If unblocked, I would not contribute to the English Wikipedia anymore. I should also delete any annoying contents from the Wikipedia such as "LLM slop" and other unproductive edits. Thank you for your understanding.

Decline reason:

If you don't want to edit the English language Wikipedia any more, there is no need to unblock you. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please do not add LLM-generated content to articles or talk pages!

This edit, made on 10 March 2025, added to Stochastic calculus appears to be LLM-generated. This edit to an article talk page also appears to be LLM-generated. So is this edit. Please do not place LLM-generated content into Wikipedia articles or talk pages. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gravedancing

Please minded that I never defaming anyone, so do not attempt to defaming me. Just stop it! You have offended me already! Dominic3203 (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://gist.github.com/Dominic3203/25d8689e29940869ed8a65532a3f228c