User talk:Mersenne56

Hi Mersenne. In this edit you changed some British spelling to American spelling without leaving an Edit summary to explain why you made the changes. Wikipedia accepts both British English and American English, subject only to the desire for consistency within an article. See MOS:ENGVAR.

A small number of articles have such strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation that they should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. See MOS:TIES. These articles have a banner near the top of their Talk page declaring the national variety of English that should be used throughout that article. For example:

• near the top of Talk:George Washington there is a banner stating “This article is written in American English …”
• near the top of Talk:Winston Churchill there is a banner stating “This article is written in British English …”

The great majority of articles in Wikipedia have no such banner on their Talk pages. For these articles, it is acceptable to change the spelling of words to achieve consistency within the article, but otherwise the existing spelling should be retained. See MOS:RETAIN.

If the spelling of a word is being changed from one national variety to another to achieve consistency within an article it is vital that a comment to this effect is included in the Edit summary; otherwise it looks like nothing more than a violation of the principle explained at MOS:RETAIN. Please don’t change British spelling to American spelling except in accordance with MOS:RETAIN, and remember to leave an explanatory Edit summary. Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 13:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dolphin51: Sorry, I am still new to editing pages. I did not think about the difference in spelling conventions. Thanks. Mersenne56 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply; and a big thanks for all the amazing work you are doing in the area of mathematics!

I had a quick look at your list of contributions and I see that mostly you don’t leave an Edit summary. Edit summaries are useful and valuable so I encourage you to make some sort of summary most of the time. See WP:ES. Dolphin (t) 22:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Differential equation. The resulting section "Applications" was essentially a long list, which may be useful for navigation, but could be boring for most users. Moreover, the manual of style discourages including such lists in articles, as standard prose is better for an encyclopedic purpose. Therefore, I have moved this list into a new WP:list article named List of named differential equations. You are credited of your edits by the edit summary that asserted that this new article results from a split (and thus that one can consult your edits on the history of Differential equation). Again, thanks for your valuable contributions. D.Lazard (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mersenne56,

Thank you for creating PDE-constrained optimization.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Original research not allowed in WP.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|WikiAviator}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

WikiAviator (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@WikiAviator: Hi WikiAviator, Thank you for taking the time to review the page. Could you clarify for me what is the original research you are objecting to? My first thought is the Navier-Stokes example, but I am not sure; although the source I've cited is a doctoral thesis, I noticed the problem in the presentation labeled "PDE Constrained Optimization" that is listed in the "External links" section. I would like to clarify that I am not an author from any of the cited works, nor am I affiliated with them in any way. Thanks.Mersenne56 (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mersenne56: Maybe you don't mean it, but it really sounds like an essay and the term here is not widely-used. I am just concerned if this is made up. If it is not, please work on improving the tone and make it look like an article and cite real-world examples that are backed by notable institutes instead of a small number of essays written by students for their homework. Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@WikiAviator: PDE-constrained optimization is certainly not a made-up subsection of optimal control; that fact does not depend on your acquaintance with the subject matter. I have removed the "essays written by students for their homework." The remaining references that are not books or academic journal papers are from a lecturer at the University of Edinburgh's School of Mathematics and Antony Jameson - one of the leading CFD researchers in the world. Presumably those sources are reputable enough for you. Mersenne56 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mersenne56: OK, but I still think it lacks context. WikiAviator (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey thanks for adding some new articles about differential equations to Wikipedia. That's really cool. Appreciate you sharing your knowledge. jengod (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mersenne56. I saw that you recently added a new section to Alfvén Mach number but did not provide any references. I have added a Template:Citation needed section for now; can you add the references you used? CoronalMassAffection (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I added a reference from Introduction to Magnetohydrodynamics. I didn't include one because the nondimensionalization leading to the Alfvén Mach number is something that comes directly from a standard scaling of the MHD momentum equation, rather than something requiring more complicated manipulations. The first few equations come directly from the MHD page. Mersenne56 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the derivation is straightforward, but a citation is still needed so that readers can WP:VERIFY that the derivation is correct. Is there a particular page number or numbers in the Davidson text where the Alfvén Mach number is derived? CoronalMassAffection (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Air Force Officer Qualifying Test. 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. 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. JTtheOG (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I have expanded the draft with several secondary sources that discuss the AFOQT directly and in depth, including an in-depth RAND Corporation analysis from 2010. These sources cover the AFOQT’s history, psychometric structure, predictive validity, and role in officer and aircrew selection, rather than merely verifying operational details.

Given the AFOQT’s longstanding use as the primary aptitude and qualification test for U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force officer accession and rated selection programs since 1953, these additions address the notability concern under the general notability guideline. Mersenne56 (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)