I wonder how most of papers around 1930 written in very nice typesetting. Like papers of Duk. Uni.

@DimaPasechnik: Are you sure? I think nowadays CFSG has been confirmed by computers but I am not sure. In any case how can one trust such results?

@RyanBudney: Why you say "The 70's is an era where there were a lot of prominent papers with big holes in them"? Do you aware of another paper with deficient proof? It seems that you are agree with Paul Ehrlich?

@RyanBudney: Most of people cited Aubin paper, also cited Paul Ehrlich's paper as well. This makes me hesitate that perhaps others also have same problem of Paul Ehrlich. (I have no access to MathSciNet but I checked ZB).

Dear prof. Bryant, Your argument mainly based on that the dimension of $M$ is odd, Do you think that one can construct an example in even dimensions?

Is there any way to export bib file of many titles/doi by one click? e.g. entering 10 paper name and exporting bib file of all of them into one single file.

@Hikaru: Thanks. Has been added.

This post is a little related and may help you.

@RenatoG.Bettiol: Isn't "strongly nonnegative curvature" or "strongly positive curvature" an obvious definition that at least from top view is a useless tool? To me it is like this that I have a negative number in mind and you are seeking for a positive number that has a positive or nonnegative result when add up to my number. Why should this be a useful tool?

@DoronGrossman-Naples: OK, I've added it to the list.

@DoronGrossman-Naples: Will that website last forever? if so, lets add it to the list?