User talk:Tito Omburo

Hello, Tito Omburo,

I've been editing Wikipedia now for 12 years and spent a lot of time on the AN and ANI noticeboards over the years. We have lost innumerable good editors because they couldn't get along with other editors. They might be rich in knowledge and talented writers but they don't assume good faith or stay CIVIL. You have been editing here long enough that I don't think this would be an issue with your status but I don't know what to think after today's ANI complaint brought by you. I don't know how you thought you would be successful making mostly unsourced accusations against an admin who has been editing here 20 years and has made over 2.5 million edits. Of course, tenure doesn't mean anyone is perfect but it is an indication that they know their way around the project. If you truly want to resolve a problem with an administrator, you should have filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrative action review and have a case prepared. ANI is a high profile noticeboard that is known as the drama board and isn't the correct place to effect changes, it's the place to go if you want to make a scene, which you did. Also, at ANI, you can expect your own editing to come under scrutiny, you can't expect discussions to stay on topic and to be controllable.

This is a limited block for edit warring but you will have decisions to make when it's over. Do you want the community to address a systemic problem? Then you should probably create a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you have an individual admin action you want to critique, open a case at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. Or you could just return to the quiet life of a regular editor and take yourself off the hot seat. It's your choice where to head next but just know that how cases resolve themselves are basically out of any one editor's control. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Tito Omburo is one of our very best editors. I am sad he is blocked. MathKeduor7 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Tito, I hope you understand that I am not your enemy, and I am not trying to be. We can share the goal of improving the encyclopedia and have civil disagreements and discussions about how best to accomplish that. BD2412 T 22:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry I had a meltdown and took it out on you. It was uncalled for. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Your contributions to this project are appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, my block was absolutely a good thing. Got back to what I do best. I think I shouldn't inject myself into any kind of drama. That can take care of itself. ;-) Tito Omburo (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I will extend an olive branch as well. I have been in similar shoes for what its worth. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, apologies to you as well. Tito Omburo (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and Sorry… You kindly provided me the SageMath code for the mapping required for doing pairings. Would you be able to provide me the code for doing the reverse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Since_altbn254_is_using_an_isomorphism,_how_to_map_points_from_%7F'%22%60UNIQ--postMath-0000003B-QINU%60%22'%7F_back_to_%7F'%22%60UNIQ--postMath-0000003C-QINU%60%22'%7F_using_SageMath_provided_they_have_a_suitable_order_? please 2A01:E0A:ACF:90B0:0:0:A03F:E788 (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Just a note to say that i have opened an ANI report on Mepperelf. No need for you do do anything, as i say this is simply a courtesy notification as you have commented on the issue on their talk page ~ Lindsay^Hello

Hi. Just want to thank you for weighing in with your expertise on the Brownian motion article but to encourage you to avoid snarky edit summaries. Reviewing new articles is important and often crosses areas of experience. Posting the tag is a way of identifying questionable issues: they don't turn out to be an issue simply saying so is enough. Thanks again, Johnjbarton (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that Tito Omburo's edit summaries were snarky. The user just pointed out that the templates lacked justification. If assessing an article is difficult, it's better to first engage in a discussion with the author rather than claiming dubious issues — especially if you're not an expert on the topic. Given that around 500 new articles are created every day, a mathematics article hardly seems problematic by comparison.--Tensorproduct (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton I wrote a comment in the mathematics portal explaining the background story. I hope you read this. I am mathematician who writes math articles on advanced subjects. And if someone (Tito Omburo) tries to defend them, I think it's very unjustified and biased if you write such a comment on the user's page. I understand that you have a similar background as Ldm1954, so there is probably a bias, but that doesn't mean that he is automatically right. Especially since he is neither a mathematician nor a theoretical physicist.--Tensorproduct (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tensorproduct Sorry I should not have used an ambiguous adjective. The edit summary that I thought might act to discourage reviews of new articles was: "Most of these tags are transparently absurd." I don't think Tito's edits were wrong and I know that Tito has expertise on the topic (as I said above). Rather I was referring the unnecessary tone of the edit summary clearly directed at another editor. That editor took time to review the article. You and Tito make a lot of improvements since then: a success all around! The review was not "absurd" and even if Tito thought as much the simple decision to express the summary in neutral tone is a step to make Wikipedia more civil. So "I don't think these tags are needed" or "I think these tags are excessive" That is all I meant by being encouraging. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Birth of a Nation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I am looking forward to constructive discussions with you on the talk page of the article. Best regards, Tito Omburo (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so productive discussions are probably out of the question? Tito Omburo (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, Tito Omburo, this has all become a lot more contentious than it ever needed to be mainly due to your conduct both on the talk page and in editing the article itself. I don't think it would be unfair to characterize it as WP:Tendentious editing. I find myself agreeing with some points you make and disagreeing with others, but you do not make collaboration between editors to find common ground and resolve differences of opinion easy. Agreeing to a proposed version and then proceeding to unilaterally change it anyway is highly disruptive and makes it very difficult to trust you to engage in discussions in good faith. TompaDompa (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quantum computing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Non-deterministic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Linear map, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scalar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Limit inferior and limit superior, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tito Omburo.

I noticed that you have recently reverted my edit regarding the derivation of the Equation (4) of the Wikipedia page section "Eigenvalues_and_eigenvectors#Eigenvalues_and_the_characteristic_polynomial", at 10:55, 9 September 2025.

Could you elaborate your rationale? You mentioned the reverting reason that this was incorrect and unnecessary, but this is too simple high-level explanation. I would like to know more. Goodphy (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The polynomial isn't monic. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought the characteristic polynomial of a n-by-n matrix is monic as described Characteristic polynomial. If not, could you share how the characteristic polynomial in x can be factored with terms (x - x_i), where x_i is a root of the polynomial, without a constant factor? The fundamental theorem of algebra does not exclude the constant factor. Goodphy (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a constant factor of (-1)^n. In any case, such details would belong in the characteristic polynomial article if anywhere. Tito Omburo (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to point it out, that is explained in the Section "Formation definition" of the article "characteristic polynomial". I considered the alternative characteristic polynomial definition as my baseline definition. I'm wondering how such constant factor (-1)^n in the characteristic polynomial of a n-by-n matrix is obtained instead of any constant factor. I will add the proof if I find. If you add it, it helps a lot. Goodphy (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

There should not be a proof at all. Tito Omburo (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elementary function, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of this idea? Sincerely, MathKeduor7 (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Just dropping an FYI about my edit , since it undid a number of your edits but will not be recorded as a revert (and so will not give you a notification). Unrelatedly, happy new year! --JBL (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026. Edittttor (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)