Jump to content

User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Please comment

Hi, I see you are making your votes and comments. Would you mind also please make at least a comment on the way the evidence was presented against me? See my comments at the talk page.--Stor stark7 Speak 22:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my provisional vote on you is to abstain. I shall return to this, and the presentation of diffs is not what I look at. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, but if no-one at least comments on the way the diffs were presented that will look as an endorsement of the inuendo the presentation conveys. And please also look at my workshop evidence analysis--Stor stark7 Speak 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is endorsed by me unless I sign it. I will return to my decision: there are 23 parties, and it will take me a little more time. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus/Greg park avenue

A more detailed chronology of the Piotrus/Greg incident can be found here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome. Also note that the characterization of greg as a model editor prior to encountering articles on Polish Jewry (and me) is not quite accurate. And the of course there is Greg's block log on Polish Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. The Polish Wikipedia situation would not normally be taken into account here. I have anyway formed a view. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Irpen and Holodomor template

Hi, Charles. You are writing in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Proposed_decision#Irpen: The claim of "ownership" at Holodomor hardly stands up; but I'm unimpressed with the editing I've seen. The edit summaries, at very least, game our standards. If a template is a "coatrack", you are supposed to discuss that template, not simply exclude it from the page it centrally involves. I am not sure you have looked, but there was an intensive discussion at Template_talk:Holodomor and Irpen was one of the most active and constructive participants. The earlier versions of the template (like e.g. this one were very biased toward a single point of view and completely unacceptable. Eventually, a stable consensus for of the template was developed and it was introduced into the relevant articles. No administrative intervention was required to reach the consensus. I think it is a good editorial practice to keep navigational templates out of the articles (especially as high profile as Holodomor) until there is a consensus over the content of the template. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Seek consensus for inclusion" as Irpen says can mean "I have a veto", or it can mean something better. I myself don't much like many such templates, but I don't agree with judgements like "completely unacceptable" when that also means some people assert a veto. There were repeated deletions. Good editors would delete only once, and then accept a "wrong" version while the matter was debated. Also the repeated use of the term "coatrack" assumes bad faith: it means that the template is only there to introduce some extra material, not that the template has in some way too many links. So I have these three issues:
  • some assertions that are too strong, suggesting "ownership" in the way "any consensus version must include me";
  • too many reverts, where 1RR is ideal, accepting the "wrong version" template for some time;
  • failure to assume good faith, repeated.
Further, I had problems with edit summaries with slight deceptions: "peacock terms" as plural where it seems "enormous" only was removed. That is not a "peacock term" anyway, it is just the wrong tone (maybe requisitions were excessive or disproportionate, but that shouldn't be editorial comment, but supported). These factors all together seemed to me to give a poor impression of the editing there by Irpen. The approach was too strongly for his POV. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, eventually the consensus was achieved without using administrative tools that on my books vindicate whatever methods were used to achieve the consensus. Irpen was certainly not alone requesting template to be edited before its insertion to the article. Me, Relato_Refero and JoeDoe also requested modification of the template. That makes four reasonably prolific editors with reasonably different points of view. Unless there was a firm indication that the template in the current form is unacceptable for many editors I doubt that any compromise could be reached. I am not sure I agree that all wrong versions are equal. I think some of them are more wrong than the other. In particular versions that remove valid dispute tags, insert dubious unreferenced info, move articles from stable titles, insert navigational templates with the content that is not agreed upon, etc. are IMHO more wrong than the opposite version. At any rate if we are after punishing people for the edit war at the Holodomor article then would it be fair to address behaviour of both sides. I have seen no criticism or remedies of users removing disputed templates, reintroduced unfinished template to the high profile articles, repeatedly inserted BLP violations, etc. On the other hand we are to put Irpen who is hardly a revert warrior on 1RR per week (that is basically equivalent to ban from any remotely controversial articles there almost any edit can be seen as a partial revert). I do not think it is fair. I would trust you as a native English speaker that Irpen's edit summaries some time overused wiki jargon or was not the most precise words. I just want to point out that English is a third language for Irpen (after Russian and Ukrainian), I think he deserves some assumption of good faith that some abuse of the language are caused by the insufficient command of it rather than the evil intentions. Maybe I am biased but IMHO remedies on Irpen are much harsher than desrved according to the facts found. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Relata_Refero was also a problem in the template matter. "Punishment" is not the issue, ever. The edit summaries were inaccurate use of Wikipedia jargon, so I hope to see am improvement there. Irpen is an experienced editor, so should only be citing policies/essays when they apply precisely. The imprecision may impress others, but my comments were exactly because we have to keep the summaries on difficult pages very accurate and fair. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed that Relato is also on the remedies of this workshop while the opposite side of the edit war is completely vindicated. I just not 100% sure that it is fair. I am also not sure why punishment should be in quotation marks and why it is not the issue. It is certainly an issue for me. I also cannot help but notice that the argumentation is somehow changing from Irpen should be put on the most severest of the restrictions because he did not discuss the Holodomor template to Irpen should be put on the most severest of the restrictions because Peacock is not correct description for the word enormous, instead he should use the word tone. I am not quite sure how the restrictions would help for this new problem. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It would have been enormously more productive to edit and discuss the template directly rather than edit war over its insertion. In my view the whole template insertion edit war was pointlessly disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to say that the template was not discussed on its talk? I do not think it is true Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It (the template) obviously was discussed. My problem is the attitude shown by I and RR that the template must be perfect before it can be used on its central page. That is not our way. Everyone should accept some imperfect situations on the site, from their point of view. Don't push for 100% of your own POV, but always work with others to improve matters as they are. This is the correct way of informal dispute resolution: define your actual problem with the current version, not use general terminology like "coatrack" which will not be helpful. Try a flexible, resourceful approach to resolving matters. (Yes, editing the template is one way - even if reverted, the change will clarify the precise changes that are asked for, and some negotiation will happen.) This is just one aspect of my problems with Irpen. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Piotrus 2

FT2 and David Gerard

Now that the Arbcom has finished de-sysoping Slim Virgin (albeit very unpopularly [1]), it will doubtless want to show the same speedy diligence in other worrying matters. Could you outline the time scale and agenda for the investigation of David Gerard's suspected misuse of oversight rights in regard to the election of FT2 to the Arbitration committee. Obviously FT2 will need to be suspended from the Arbcom and its list during this investigation, can you give the community an approximated date for the conclusion of the investigation and the names of those carrying it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is (as far as I know) no case open against David Gerard right now. Is someone bringing one? What is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to me. The general approach (or at least my general approach) to ArbCom enforcement is this: those who go too far are not treated as "vigilantes". In the hypothetical situation of an admin A who is too enthusiastic about enforcing ArbCom ruling R against editor E, in my view the ArbCom should proceed by making its views on the enforcement of R clearer to A and others.
That, though, is not exactly what has gone on so far in the matter you raise. The motion contained a finding that for the ruling in question, previously-given written permission from the ArbCom will in future be required. I think this kind of ratification will lead to delay but probably will be clarifying in the end. Any admin who flouts that finding will be in trouble; any admin who complies with it will have full backing. Myself, I prefer generally to give admins plenty of discretion, and to give them a hard time if they use it badly. Here we have moved some way in the other direction. It is certainly worth explaining this much to you. I doubt, in fact, if David Gerard will be required to answer further for his action. He is after all on the ArbCom list, and so is much more in the loop and within reach for comment from arbs. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Giano, in my experience it is not useful to complain to the ArbCom about one of their own. You must go directly to the community. While our RFC process is not enforceable, it could be used to show whether 30%, 50% or 70% of the community feel that a particular arbitrator or ex-arbitrator has abused their power or exercised poor judgment. Those who have honor will resign upon a vote of "no confidence". Meanwhile, by using established dispute resolution processes, I believe you would have a strong position against those who might like to silence criticism. Jehochman Talk 17:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, OK, that route exists. David is very much accountable within the ArbCom list, which as Kirill once said is _very_ frank. David has been asked whether he made a mistake. I.e. he has been asked to explain, and then that is done with. "One of our own" is of course a non-neutral way to look at it. My general view, if people want to know, is that our "trusted user" concept means we have a cadre system, not really a pyramid with ArbCom at the top. People are recruited as "trusted" by different routes, but this works pretty well (now - like all things WP, go back a ways and you can dig up stuff that wouldn't pass muster today). Charles Matthews (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've always imagined that you Arbs beat each other senseless on the mailing list from time to time. My concern is that if the committee clears one of their own, it does not mean much. For that reason, I think accusations against AC members should be reviewed by the community, or by Jimbo, depending on whether confidential matters are involved. Jehochman Talk 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If 20% of the ArbCom list wanted someone removed (from the list, from rights, from the Committee) it would happen quickly and probably quietly (I'm not thinking of anything particular here). Public opinion needs much more, is largely ill-informed (sorry, I do know this territory), and cannot be surgical. Guess which I think is the better way. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Really? That's impressive. Jehochman Talk 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, this is just my gut feeling of the dynamics, on a charge of lacks clue/lacks integrity/too accident-prone, that sort of thing, people simply nervous about a colleague. Four or five of the "cadre" thinking and articulating that properly is a strong hand. As I say, not based on real history. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
And were I to launch an RFC in regards to Gerard and FT2 you would say that was drama mongering. Your comments above do nothing more than confirm the views of this present Arbcom held by so many. It seems it matters not a jot by what means Arbs scramble onto the committee so long as they get there. Giano (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
No, actually, I wouldn't. I welcome people putting their disputes into dispute resolution, which is a system often badmouthed by people who misunderstand its intention and operstion. If you have really gone through the preliminary step of discussing directly your beefs with these admins, in a serious-minded way, and have then got the required outside support to certify these efforts, then you are entitled to launch an RfC. I'm for reduction of drama. An RfC properly directed at an issue has its virtues in that. Of course I don't want to see a pile-on. I want thoughtful participation not distracted by side-issues. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions Pages

It's fuzzy, because follow-up questions are OK and encouraged by some candidates. I'd submit that you could have the question (from the questioner), your response, and then a link to the discussion page, where the rest of the discussion would be moved. The process for moving discussions tied to votes would work well. You are correct, though - it's a question and answer page, not a discussion page. I'll have a look later this afternoon, when I get some time, and I'll sort things out if you haven't already by that point - but you are indeed justified in moving discussion to the discussion page, as needed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel differently about different cases. I have now posted a message at the top, suggesting that people may post follow-up questions but not butt into existing threads. That I would much prefer. It would be a great help to have a neutral voice, perhaps dealing with specifics on the talk page of the questions page. It is already long at around 150K, and I think long threaded discussions are really wrong for the format. If you could intervene as a neutral, I'd be very grateful, just to keep it all on track and reasonable. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 Done. I've moved the discussion, cross-linked the two pages, and notified SV. If she wishes to post a question to you directly, she is free to do so - but discussion on point should continue on the discussion page itself. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
My thanks ... if you could just keep an eye on it all, from now on. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Abstentions in Piotrus 2

Charles, do you realize abstaining only lowers the threshold of the number of votes required to pass? Even though 6 votes are required to pass a motion, some motions will pass with 5 or even 4 votes, because of the high number of abstentions. If that was your intent, fair enough. Martintg (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was writing a document about this recently. I'm not going to oppose certain things ... anyway I have answered you. Mathematically, two people abstaining always reduces the required votes by 1? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Biography of a living person

I'm having trouble finding sources to support a biography for something that just came up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. As you are the person who wrote the content, I thought that I might ask directly, in case you happen to remember. What was your source for this? Uncle G (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood, of course: see "How to Merge Articles", pp. 261-2 of "How Wikipedia Works"! Also "Edit Summaries", pp. 196-7 of the same book, bullet point 6 (about splitting, mentions GFDL, but it could afford to say "merge" also). In early 2006 I was still relying on people searching the redirects, but naturally this is not my current way. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Paolo Sarpi

I only meant that it should be flagged, and if possible, replaced. Thank you for responding. Ceoil (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt

Charles, you're continuing to comment on [2] (and in my view misrepresent) our e-mail correspondence about your involvement in the Carl Hewitt Observer story. Your latest claim is that I became "shouty." When I try to correct your comments, you have them removed on the grounds that threaded discussion isn't "allowed" on the election questions pages.

Please represent me accurately. You and then Tom Harrison posted inappropriately to that page. You seem not to accept that the page is not for threaded discussion. Well, threaded discussion can be on the talk page. Or you can ask any follow-up questions under the section already started for your questions. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't acceptable that you make false comments about me, then don't allow me to respond. Please either remove all those references, or allow me to post a response.

Well, "shouty" in an email was a metaphor, naturally. It conveys the tone as I read it. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I ask that you allow me to post our Hewitt correspondence on a subpage, so that others can judge it for themselves. You've copied it to a journalist without my permission, so the presumption in favour of confidentiality has already been violated. I'm therefore requesting your permission to post the e-mails on a subpage. I e-mailed you the following request today (reproducing it here in case you describe it it as more "nuisance mail," or "shouty"). SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You may do the following. You may post in sequence all of your mails, with timings, but only your side. I mean the entire, repetitive mailing. Including the one I didn't open because I had twice asked you to stop, and your comments in the mail via Jimmy Wales. Once you have posted the entirety of what you wrote, I will interpolate what I think is a fair selection of what I wrote. We can then consider where we are on this. I'm not promising to post every word from my side, but I am promising to be fair.
So please start from "Thank you for sending that", your acknowledgement for my mail with subject line "Hewitt and the PCC", and post your replies in that thread, plus what you sent via Jimbo. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:54 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles, I've asked you several times whether I may post our Hewitt correspondence on a subpage, and you're not saying one way or the other.
You copied some or all of it without my consent to a journalist, so I'm assuming you *don't* regard it as private, but I hesitate to make that assumption without your explicit consent. (I'm proceeding, by the way, on the assumption that our e-mails from now on will not be subject to the presumption of confidentiality.)
The reason I would like to be released from any prior confidentiality is that you're significantly misrepresenting the correspondence (in my view), and insisting that my comments correcting you be removed from the election page, so I would prefer that people judge it for themselves.
Sarah

I note, by the way, that you still are sending me mail despite explicit requests not to. I don't know whether you have yet had my long mail sent via Jimbo. In case not, I note that it has sections A to E, and that section E is called "Responsiveness and communication". Point E4 reads "You have no permission of any kind to release my mails". Point E6 reads "I wish to have no communication from you until this matter is resolved - third time of saying this". You have been operating well outside netiquette by mailing me when I'd made it clear this was unacceptable. Hence "nuisance mail", an example of which you have just copied above so that the world can see. You are pestering me by not allowing me a few hours off on Saturday afternoon and evening to have a life. And being awkward on my candidate questions by cross-threading is just the icing on the cake. Why don't you account in terms for ElinorD's impression of that exchange? Who said "hostile" to her, by the way? Who thought up this device of briefing her and then jumping into the thread? I have every right to stop people fooling around with the page, as you and Tom Harrison did. And I think you know that very well.

I think a neutral observer might conclude that you try to wear people down by sheer persistence, whatever the merit of your points, and at whatever the cost in broken etiquette. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And since you are being dense about the point, I copied a few lines of yours to Jenny Kleeman so that she might talk some sense into you about Hewitt's beefs. You are well on the way to making a public spectacle of yourself in supporting completely worthless allegations of his, and Jenny, I thought, could stop you in your tracks as I obviously could not, despite my good faith efforts to get you to pull back given that the PCC ruling had just been made known to me.

You were given a full clarification by Jenny, including the following para she won't mind me quoting:


This apparently had no effect at all. Well, I tried. You'll have to learn the hard way about Hewitt.

Charles Matthews (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then I will post only my own e-mails. I won't reproduce yours. That way people will be able to judge how accurate your descriptions of my writing are. By the way, I won't be starting from any particular line or e-mail as you asked. I'm going to post all my e-mails to you about Hewitt.
And note again, please — my complaint is about your actions as an arbitrator. That is not something anyone outside Wikipedia can put me straight on, so there is no point in you trying to involve others. Even if you were 100 percent right about Carl Hewitt, he's the subject of a BLP, and we're not supposed to harass BLP subjects or report them to newspapers just because they get into bother on WP over a bit of self-promotion — which, as you know, is very common. For an arbitrator to take a BLP subject to the ArbCom, and then report him to a newspaper, is unethical, in my view. Period. Nothing to do with the journalist, who was only doing her job. It wasn't your job, that's the point.
Also, with respect, it's somewhat childish to try to get others to send your e-mails for you. I have not received it. Send it yourself if you want me to see it. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to get back to me as Arbitrator. You said "public stain". The PCC says "no grounds for complaint at all". That seems to deal with the matter, if you take Jenny's word for it. If not, the ruling will be posted as the PCC webmaster sees fit, and the whole world will be able to judge. As for using a third party as cut-out, I think some people would say that slamming the door in the face of all communication would be "childish", while getting a third party involved would be a way forward. Let others judge that, also. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The long mail sent by your request c/o gmail. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You are of course still missing the point about Hewitt. It is not the self-promotion alone; it is the professor who self-promotes by pushing his OR into WP in the teeth of explicit public criticism by the founder of the field. Otherwise there is no story at all, and rightly. That is why Hewitt had to attack Kleeman's professionalism, and claim a taped interview with Kowalski that Kowalski had checked over was in fact a fabrication. The story is so far unique as far as academics is concerned. It is a million miles away from pathetic attempts by small hi-tech companies and individuals to drum up work by getting a toehold of a page here. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect again, you keep missing my point by mentioning other issues. (1) If this was a story the academic community was interested in, or felt was important, they could have tipped off the Observer. It didn't have to be a Wikipedia arbitrator doing it. The fact that no one else did suggests that it wasn't a major issue. (2) If the PCC says the newspaper and the reporters did a good job, that's great! I have no doubt they did. But that has nothing to do with you.
My point is solely why you felt it was up to you as an arbitrator to contact a newspaper about a case that had been brought before the arbitration committee, involving the subject of a BLP who was self-promoting. Do you not see why someone might find it objectionable that you did this? Even if you disagree with them, do you understand why someone might be concerned?
If you do understand it, would you please address those concerns? Two questions, specifically:
1. Can people who are brought before the arbitration committee with interesting cases in future expect you to contact the press about them? In other words, would you do this again? If so, please explain why, and if not, please say why not.
2. Are you careful, when you do contact the press, to make sure you don't use any material that has been e-mailed to the arbitration committee, or do you feel that it's all fair game? SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

With equal respect, you write:

If the PCC says the newspaper and the reporters did a good job, that's great! I have no doubt they did. But that has nothing to do with you.

It has a great deal to do with me, and having cultivated Jenny Kleeman as a press contact with a genuine interest in, and track record on, covering WP stories. I knew how professionally and fairly she had interviewed me. Your "nothing to do with you" is outrageous in the context I have given you. And you know my previous press experience working for a voluntary organisation, which I volunteered to you in 2007.

Your comment on academia reveals a lack of insight:

If this was a story the academic community was interested in, or felt was important, they could have tipped off the Observer.

Well, yes, anyone who felt strongly enough to become a pariah over the issue. Remember my time in academia.

I was not acting as an arbitrator. In my previous experience I just mentioned, I observed that for one person cultivating press contacts and looking with an intelligent eye for what a reporter wants, there are always ten people giving opinions, setting criteria, criticising efforts, asking questions that are about image management not the concerns of the mainstream media, and so on. In other words talk is cheap: I had done press work before, and just got on with it. Ask Theresa Knott whether my approach was valid.

Q1a: Can people who are brought before the arbitration committee with interesting cases in future expect you to contact the press about them?

This is a one-off. The ArbCom pages are of course public. Another "leading case" might crop up, while I was an Arbitrator (assuming I continue). I was of course not arbitrating on Carl Hewitt, since I was a party. In similar circumstances where there was a quarrel in academia spilling over into WP, I would be unlikely to comment to the press at all until it was old history, and then in a guarded way. If you think there should be a CommCom or ArbCom guideline about this all, go ahead and lobby. I'm not aware of any guidance. So the answer to your framing is "no, don't expect this at all".

Q1b: In other words, would you do this again? If so, please explain why, and if not, please say why not.

I don't see the circumstances in which I would. I defend my actions, but simply as a discussion that was valid in its own terms, and apart from my role as arbitrator, me wearing a different hat if you like but acting in Wikipedia's interests by having a serious issue on the WP-academia front covered.

Q2: Are you careful, when you do contact the press, to make sure you don't use any material that has been e-mailed to the arbitration committee, or do you feel that it's all fair game?

I can be more absolute here. I of course would regard all privileged information as absolutely offlimits in dealings with the media. (Note, please, that Jenny and I had been in contact, largely by phone as far as discussions of stories is concerned, for months before Hewitt is mentioned. I have recurrent problems with less-than-neutral phrasings in the questions you pose to me, even if, as here, the substance is an entirely legitimate point.)

Charles Matthews (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are killfiled

Since you sent me further mail dated 29/11/2008, after the above, and are clearly now in receipt of my long mail with a third explicit request not to mail me, I have arranged a killfile for you. Until you apologise below and undertake to stop the spam, I shall not admit messages here from you, either. As you now know, I consider these multiple unwelcome mails from you a harassment matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton

Milton's birthday is the 9th, and we are putting a lot of pages together for DYK. However, DYK can only be done within 5 days before the date of being displayed on the mainpage, and your additions are making it impossible to make certain pages DYK. Could you please not expand any page under 15k dealing with Milton until we start our large editing campaign this weekend? Otherwise, it will mean that there will be fewer Milton pages to be displayed on the main page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand at all. DYK is, in my view, little enough to do with compiling the encyclopedia. My "additions" are making what impossible? You mean my editing of John Milton? Surely you are not saying there is anything wrong with those edits, which are much needed. I'm not available to edit this weekend, anyway, but surely you are putting the cart before the horse here. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Your edits haven't yet expanded any pages in a way that could cause problems, however, I wanted to make sure if you could hold off on additions. The DYK is an important facet to getting people interested in a topic. Milton's 400th birthday will be on the 9th, and we are trying to produce most of the new Milton pages posted on that date in the DYK section. Such a page has to be new or a 5 times expansion. I have a lot of information that I am holding off until adding during this weekend so we can put together a large Milton DYK bash on that date. There will be about 20 some new pages and quite a few more expanded during this time. After Friday, the editing will go full force and hope to create a large chunk of the body of Milton studies. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
What "cause problems"? For whom? Why? If you are saying there are some relevant guidelines limiting DYKs, just tell whoever makes or enforces such guidelines that you will be "ignoring all rules" about this. That is why we have IAR, because rules that normally give a sensible result sometimes cause nonsense, as here. Just discuss the issue and say this is a special case, and it makes no sense not to give a week run-up, for a special anniversary. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Its not that. I just wanted to make you aware that there is a lot of information being collected and compiled for the pages, and that they will be added starting this Friday for a big Milton push. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, unfortunately I won't be editing then to see it. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It will start Friday, and it will be a major push until monday for the initial creation, but then there will be a lot of editing and finishing during the rest of the week, so if you want to drop by, fix things, etc, then, it would be much appreciated! Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
One thing that should be looked into is the content of pages such as 1643 in literature. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Charles, thanks for the heads up. I have commented on the talk page. BTW, I take your posting on my page that you disagreed with OttavaÄs interpretation of the policy. Or am I mistaken in that? Str1977 (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There can be problems with neutrality with articles that are apparently OK with some formal criteria, is what I meant. I don't think NPOV is "just" anything. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As a byline, which you might find interesting (I saw your amendment to Des Wilson) I once remarked to a colleague, "You know, Jeremy, there are people out there who don't know what the Areopagitica is"; after a shortish pause, he replied, "Phil, there are also people in here who don't know what it is". --Rodhullandemu 22:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Check my talk page for a list of articles created for the push. There is a section of those that need copy editing, lead work, and other things. They can be further expanded also with cited information if you have any. I'm trying to get as much put together right now, then I will double back tomorrow and early Tuesday to fill in any gaps. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the massive Wikilinking. I've been trying to do everything over the past 72 days myself and only so much has come through. Its a little disappointing that people got sick and the rest. Otherwise, I'm sure most of the pages would have turned out better. Thanks for getting what you can. :) I'm taking a break to work on my own such until this evening when I will make the last push on Paradise Regained and creae a page talking about Miltonic blank verse and Miltonic inversions. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, take a break. You have achieved a great deal, and I'm just back myself from a short break. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
After I get about 15 hours of sleep or so, I will add an expansion to Milton's poetic style and reception history to talk about some of the later influence. However, I will spend my time building a page about his literary influence in my user section. I hope to tie in a DYK hook with Blake, Keats, and Wordsworth. I think that when such a page is built, we will have a stronger sense of how to update the main Milton page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

DNB tool

Hi fellow Cambridgian! (can I say that?;-)

I saw you worked with the DNB list I "host". This list is a monster; to help, I have written a little tool that can speed up checking of existing biographies considerably. It will strike out all DNB entries in a section that you check as being the "correct" person. The tool will pre-check articles where birth and death year (as well as name, of course) match; it will follow redirects and insert the link target appropriately; and much more. This is an example of what one can do in a single step.

I hope this is helpful. I'd love some feedback! And feel free to point others to the tool :-) --Magnus Manske (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The word is in fact "Cantabrigian"! Magnus, it was good to see you at the meetup. Thanks for dropping by.
General views are at Wikipedia:Merging encyclopedias. I have been thinking of a general schematic for the associated list maintenance. It is quite a complex flow diagram, in fact. The fundamentals are the redlink/bluelink distinction, and then the labelling of bluelinks by {{dn}} and {{mnl}}. There should also be a template or templates for "correct" entries. These are going to be related to merges. Suppose then that {{cl}} is a template for "correct link": your striking can take place, but human judgement should then refine to either {{clex}} (expand the existing article from the DNB) or {{clne}} (not to expand from DNB). I prefer changing templates to removing list entries, but {{clne}} entries could be moved to a "done" list.
Updating {{mnl}} (misleading name link) entries should be a check: either a correct link can be found, so change the link and mark with {{cl}}; or a dab page is a better target (tag with {{mld}} for "misleading link, disambiguate" by creation of an entry on a dab page; or there is need to add a hatnote to the misleading target page ({{mlhat}}. Updating {{dn}} links is classic disambiguation, and there are two cases, {{dnav}} where the correct page is available through the dab page (update link and tag with {{cl}}), and {{dnna}} where the corrrect page is not available, and the bluelink on the list should become a redlink (tag with {{dncr}} for "disambiguation done, this article should created at this title).
Anyway, there is more to say about redlinks in this business, but I'm sure you see that there is a schematic to discuss. I'd be very interested to have your views. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
10 different templates sounds overly complex to me: can't we simplify this? But I like the idea of a table, not just a list, and the idea of keeping correctly linked entries rather than deleting them from the page.Dsp13 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I know it sounds complex. I think it is complicated if done in a way that documents itself through the ordinary page history, can be done collaboratively, and allows for all cases (in the real wiki environment). In fact no one had even noticed the need for {{mnl}} until we discussed Rede Lectures, and it is a basic for any kind of list maintenance. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right door to knock on?

Someone has saw fit to ban a dynamic IP range... it's a futile thing to do and will mostly be just annoying innocent people: see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rodhullandemu#You_are_blocking_a_dynamic_IP_range_FFS.21.21.21

88.111.37.94 (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right door to knock on?

Someone has saw fit to ban a dynamic IP range... it's a futile thing to do and will mostly be just annoying innocent people: see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rodhullandemu#You_are_blocking_a_dynamic_IP_range_FFS.21.21.21

Are you complaining (this is a block not a ban, by the way) about specific collateral damage to logged-in users? Or just on principle? Charles Matthews (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm complaining about the fact that innocent people (me!)are being banned/blocked/impeded/inconvenienced because of ONE person, the blocker that is (since the offender is just the excuse for the pointless action).

The range is dynamic, so it also pointless as the offender can likely easily circumvent it. Coercing people into logging into accounts doesn't sit well with openness nor with putting the data before the ego either... some of don't like being a 'personality' 88.111.37.94 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, we make it easy to create an account, and there are no obvious disadvantages (and numerous advantages) to bona fide editors, in having an account. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Charles, I have unblocked the ranges for this, one of our very worst sockpuppeteers and block evaders. I've had him almost every day since I've been an Admin- that's ten months worth of WP:RBI. I've tried negotiating a return to his old account for User:WJH1992 if he would just stay away for a while, not evade his blocks and edit within policy, but to no avail. Back the very next day. Well, someone else can have him and the quality of the articles he edits can go to hell in a handcart as far as I'm concerned. --Rodhullandemu 16:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about your actions, I'm trying to deal with this complainant. If you want to "hand over" to another admin, that would be a good idea, but I suppose you may need to canvass support to do that successfully. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Charles... Oh, I know what you are saying, but having been an IRC Op for over a decade I prefer not being personality and letting the 'position' speak for itself.

I think this place would lose an awful lot if it were to be 'logged in only'. It'll lose an awful lot more if people are encouraged to block access to swathes of people just isolate 1 offender. Where would it end banning whole host masks or countries??? That's defensible on a small IRC channel, but for an open encyclopaedia, it sucks pretty bad. 88.111.37.94 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, you see the issue, but can you see a solution? Admins here routinely make decisions to put defending the content first, and thereby move away from the "purist" wiki notions. It has been a long time since Wikipedia was a pure-bred wiki. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, less than an hour after unblocking those ranges, he is back here. D'oh! as they say. --Rodhullandemu 17:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is NO solution. It's the nature of TCP/IP. Even if you banned my entire ISP, I could be back within seconds. Such blocks will only work in a minority of cases... the only way to make a block work is by making it BIGGER, and that'd punish even more people, and reduce even more interaction.

I guess evolution will decide how it turns out, but I think it'd be sad if the project just became an glorified Encarta. I think it has lost a lot since many 'personalities' seem to make a point of camping on articles and acting like they own them. Maybe an element of that is a good thing, but it's a heterogeneous world out there! Authority need anti-authority needs authority etc.

It'll always be a trade off, but at any rate wide, range blocks won't add anything to the quality IMHO. It's like Real Life: crime will always be there; deal with it, or stay at home.

Thanks for the cool head. :-) 88.111.37.94 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So, where do I complain about personally abusive language from editors? 88.111.37.94 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:WQA --Rodhullandemu 18:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My vote

Sorry! I removed my vote and I am ashamed of my mistake.Drjmarkov (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Request an opinion at an open arbitration request

I appreciate you are likely busy with other things right now, but if I could direct you to the procedural inquiry here for just a second, that would be great. All that is required is an arbitrators opinion, that is all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton 400th birthday on DYK

Hi Charles. There is an effort by Ottava Rima to post new articles to the DYK Main Page on 9 December 2008 to commemorate Milton's 400th birthday. Would you please add some input at Milton 400th birthday set 1 of 5. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 03:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I was offline for a few days. I'll look over the new Milton coverage. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ignoring myself

On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel ignored. The ArbCom is not an institution geared up to carry out general correspondence. There is no assignment of tasks. If your email did not receive the attention of some individual member, it would not be acknowledged. In the case of privacy matters related to checkusers, the correct place to apply is the Ombudsman commission. I have checked and it looks like you were sent something on 20 September. You acknowledged this answer on 19 October. Therefore the situation is this: you had a mail acknowledged, you know that the matter has been discussed, and you are pressing for some further action. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been ignored, plain and simple. I have it on very good authority that Arbcom has been encouraged on several occasions to reply to me, but Arbcom instead chose to actively ignore me. The reply that I received on 21 September read: "Yes, emails received and a little discussion has happened. Our docket is full at the moment so I can not give a promise of a speedy resolution." Just what in your mind equals a "speedy resolution"? 3 months? Sorry, but that is not a speedy resolution, it is fobbing of a genuine and serious concern. Unlike others, I do not think anyone is above anyone else on this project, and we should all be held to the same high standards. Next time, instead of simply approaching Arbcom quietly and asking for a simple answer, I will make it an official complaint for ALL to see and to comment on, and instead of ignoring an issue you guys will be forced to address it and in a timely manner. As you very well know, this particular Arbcom does not have the respect of the general community, and given some recent cases there are some serious issues there. A severe attitude adjustment is required. That, and given your response above, is one of the reasons that I have opposed your re-election to the Arbcom. But that's all I have to say on that, and my case (only because it is now going to be sent to the Ombudsman for the checkuser being both a breach of privacy and a very possible breach of the checkuser policy). --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 13:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
You misrepresent the position. This is not helping your cause. I believe that you have also received an apology. It is indeed a complaint you have registered. I'm not clear what an "official complaint" would be. You could put the matter into dispute resolution. This is not what you did. The position is not that the checkuser is directly accountable to you. The checkuser is directly accountable to the ArbCom, which grants checkuser rights. Your further hammering on the door is only likely to get you a message that the matter has been looked at and is now closed. This degree of formality is usually reserved for those who take informal descriptions of the position and twist them for rhetorical ends. If you are taking up the matter with the Ombudsman as related to privacy, that is an appropriate further step, and I wish you more satisfaction in that quarter. Opposing my re-election is of course your prerogative, but it seems a poor reward for giving you accurate advice in a responsive fashion. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not mispresent the position at all. I have the full facts which I am happy to disclose. If Arbcom's position was that I received an apology and the case is closed, then why didn't a single Arbcom member have the common decency to email me with such a fob off, instead of ignoring me completely. Also not answered is why was the checkuser done in the first place!! For "political" reasons is the only thing that I can think of, and that my friend is a breach of the CU policy. And to think all I wanted was an answer as to the procedures that were followed which came to the conclusion that I was sockpuppet. Whilst checkuser may be accountable to Arbcom, you are forgetting that the Arbcom is accountable directly to the community. You call it "hammering at the door", I call it asking three times in three months for the common decency of a reply, and being fobbed off. The Arbcom is so out of touch it isn't funny. No need to reply to anything else here, that's all I've got to say, and frankly, I don't much need to hear anything else. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
One last thing I will say, is thanks for at least having the balls to answer the question in the open, unlike the rest of the Arbcom (with the exception of FloNight) who have completely ignored the situation for the last 3 months. That at least shows a shred of decency on your part, and I will thank you for that. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 15:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact you mislead by omission. You had the name of an Arbitrator. The way the world works is also the way the ArbCom works: if you had prompted that Arbitrator, you would presumably have got a more direct reply, but instead you started saying you had been "fobbed off". I have looked at your mails, and your tone is not that reasonable. If you cannot accept an apology when offered, it sounds as if you are after something more major. If the Committee doesn't see it that way, you are creating a stand-off. You are not really entitled to interrogate checkusers as to procedures followed, and you seem to think that you are. The reason for that is that some details of the use of the CheckUser tool are kept out of public view, in order that the tool should remain effective. (I'm not a checkuser and there is no use holding me to account for such details: I'm not in a position to judge one way or another.) Charles Matthews (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My vote

I agree that you've been thoroughly misrepresented (at least insofar as I'm able to evaluate the various representations without delving more deeply into old Arb cases than I care to). And "recharge with some more content work" was probably a poor choice of words, as I am familiar with your extensive gnoming; maybe "recharge by removing yourself from the Wikipedia cesspool for a while" would have been better. Of course, it's very likely that even if you took that advice The Community still wouldn't let you back on to Arb Comm a year from now, which probably isn't fair, but I can't allow my expectation of a future unfair electorate to determine my vote this time around. This time around, I think it would be best if you left Arb Comm (and I realize that it might seem awfully arrogant of me to be making that assessment). But my thanks for your work are sincere, and not conciliatory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have problems (beyond the obvious ones) with the democratic process at work, namely deciding that members of ArbCom can be replaced. There have been, in my view, an impressive number of smears that have been aimed particularly at James and me. Electoral guides are subject to caveat emptor, would be one way to put it. Another would be that people put about rumours at election time, and that the only way to nail those is if they are posed as questions to candidates (some are not).
In any case I have been responding to some specifics in the voter comments, to see if I have got the point. Thanks for responding. I have been editing content for five years on similar principles, and if exactly how I go about that is an electoral issue, then it is. I feel it is little enough to do with the requirements of Arbitration, but then my opinion on that isn't of great relevance. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
For greater clarity, my own vote—poor choice of words notwithstanding—has nothing to do with your content editing. I'm not suggesting more or different mainspace work, just less Wikipolitics work. In any event, best of luck (with the election and beyond). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for John Milton's poetic style

Updated DYK query On 11 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Milton's poetic style, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Backslash Forwardslash 23:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys at Piotrus arbcom

At the Piotrus ARBCOM, you have opposed or abstained on a finding that Biophys has engaged in unhelpful speculation and fear-mongering (I call it nuttery). It has also been mentioned that he has said he will not do it again. If you refer to User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_19#Inappropriate_use_of_account.3F, it is plain to see that he has gone against this, and had openly accused myself of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. This accusation was raised after he and User:Grey_Fox-9589 gamed the system, and reported me for violating WP:3RR. Whilst I admitted that I breached 3RR, I also raised further information at the [3RR report, in particular that I would not sit by and allow BLP information to be introduced into the article; note it is Biophys who has accused me of doing so (it is a laughable claim); additionally he somehow managed to worm his way out of getting a block also for breaching 3RR, something that I quite clearly pointed out to the THREE admins. Due these repeated accusations on Tiptoey's talk page, whilst I was blocked (how convenient for Biophys that I couldn't respond), I demanded that a check user be done in order to stop these outrageous accusations. It was confirmed that I am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet (for the second time mind you), and as you can see from that link, even afterwards Biophys continued to harrass and engage in speculative nuttery; it was even mentioned by 2 other editors. I have written to the Arbcom privately on 8 November with information pertaining to myself, and how such accusations can be possibly damaging, but I didn't get a response to that one either.

Also possibly not looked at on the Piotrus arbcom is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Russavia. In particular the BLP violations committed by Biophys. I addressed this at the 3RR report, in which THREE admins saw what I posted, but refused to do anything about.

Is this Arbcom responsible for this particular case?

Why after pointing this out on several occasions has not a single word about BLP been said to Biophys?

Or is it acceptable to have:

In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile.[44] He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,[45].

in articles, which are sourced to Chechen terrorist websites?

Would it be acceptable to have a similar sourced claim about Gandhi in an article? Or what if it were on the Jimbo Wales article?

Compare that to the NPOV version which I inserted into the article:

In an article written by Litvinenko in July 2006, and published online on Zakayev's Chechenpress website, he claimed that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile,[49] and compared Putin to Andrei Chikatilo.[50] Litvinenko also claimed that Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik knew of the alleged paedophilia.[50] The claims have been called "wild",[51] and "sensational and unsubstantiated"[52] in the British media. Litvinenko made the allegation after Putin kissed a boy on his belly whilst stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds on 28 June 2006.[52] The incident was recalled in a webcast organised by the BBC and Yandex, in which over 11,000 people asked Putin to explain the act, to which he responded, "He seemed very independent and serious... I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. He seemed so nice...There is nothing behind it."[53] It has been suggested that the incident was a "clumsy attempt" to soften Putin's image in the lead-up the 32nd G8 Summit which was held in Saint Petersburg in July 2006.[52]

Which was removed several times by Biophys and replaced with the statement of fact that Putin is a paedophile.

Why has this not been addressed by the Arbcom, after being presented into evidence? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bishop–Keisler controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bishop–Keisler controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop–Keisler controversy. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Kohs block design

You created an article about Kohs. Where did you learn about him and his block design test? You said he created this test at age 28. How do you know? Is this original test available anywhere? Did he publish norns for this test? I know this test is commonly used in various intelligence tests, but I'm interested in the original version by Kohs. Any information would be appreciated. Overshoes (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually "create" the material in Samuel Kohs. It was from the Kohs article, started by User:The Kohser. If you go back in the history of Kohs, you'll see that. Given the way we handle surnames, that was the appropriate way to go. Obviously the information at Samuel Kohs and Kohs block is very partial. I know this isn't very helpful. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a reference: The Block Design Tests (Journal of Experimental Psychology, Oct. 1920). Charles Matthews (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Overshoes (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mahalanobis distance

Dear User.

You contributed to the Mahalanobis distance article. Some of its content lacks citations for verification, has been challenged and may be removed. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references.Calimo (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added an "expert" template. Simply removing intuitive and heuristic remarks from mathematical articles because they are not referenced is not likely to make the quality of the encyclopedia better: it is a retreat into a type of article only accessible to a few. The better way is to have experts remove anything that is actually misleading. User:Michael Hardy can probably help. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


Giano

Is someone intending to tell Giano his blocks been extended, or is it an early Christmas surprise. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Well, it wasn't. I have left a message for Giano II, naturally. I offered to make the block on behalf of the ArbCom because the routine abuse might as well be directed to someone who has had his share of it recently. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles, you re-blocked the guy for a full 72hrs period for a single post to a friend's talk page? That's ridiculous. Please ask Bishonen for some background info. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not ridiculous at all to reset a block that has been evaded. It's the usual thing. In fact Giano II implying he's a special case does not make him a special case. If blocked, you email your friends, simple as that. I'm happy to talk to Bishonen at any time. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You are seriously out of touch with common-sense best practice of admins dealing with blocked users. I get users doing these harmless one-off talkpage-only block "evasions" out of ignorance or carelessness all the time. I would never even dream of re-blocking for those. This is not an issue of special treatment for Giano, it's just normal humane commonsense admin practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This was punitive and only designed to create further drama. January can't get here soon enough. SashaNein (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that I'm implementing a decision discussed properly by the whole ArbCom? Charles Matthews (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we know Charles, you're the boss(es). At least for a few more weeks, that is. For the record, I cound 7-6 (or 5, maybe), so with such division (even on arbcom) perhaps the lot of you should have thought twice before taking such divisive and controversial action. Or maybe not. Who am I to say? I'm just a normal editor, without the big stick that you carry. SDJ 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While I recognize that you aren't in a position to read the minds of the members of ArbCom, do you think that the Committee could be open to considering a reduction in the length of the (renewed) block?

Despite Giano's persistent unpleasant conduct, I am willing to grant the possibility that he was genuinely ignorant of the technical limitations of his block (though I'm less inclined to trust that he was unaware of the intended effect...). I would have thought that twenty-four hours to get the point across would be sufficient — for a first offense.

Note that I don't support a free pass here. His conduct while blocked was not exactly lily-white, and included some childish namecalling just a few hours ago: [3], [4]. (Incidentally, if that conduct was already part of the reason supporting the extension of Giano's block, it may be worthwhile to highlight the point.) Best wishes, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We are considering a reduction, on the grounds that the current reset block effectively includes the time we spent discussing the matter (rather than resetting immediately). On that basis the block may well be lifted early. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
While evading a block just before it expires just to spite sounds like something Giano might do, I believe this was an honest mistake. He has been here long, but is not that familiar with the technical details of Wikipedia. Many demanding an unblock are those that would say the same regardless of circumstances, but be sure that I am not one of those. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Very plausible, in fact. But, the behaviour even under that assumption was straight "boundary testing". This factor carries weight in deciding whether the letter of the law should, as here, be applied. Nothing in the past behaviour of Giano II really suggests that letting it all go past would be rewarded. The initial block was for blatant incivility to two female admins, and it certainly seems to me important that any waving away of the matter is in fact diminishing at the same time what was said to them. There is a track record here, and block evasion is simply wrong, if in some cases easy. And, what, the person in question complains about a range block affecting him, and then pays no mind to the concept that he can get round the imposed block precisely because a range block was not imposed on him? Come on now, that is much like wanting to have your cake and eat it. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not criticizing the first ArbCom block. Just, the evasion was probably unintentional and barely anyone noticed. His recent snide comments about Theresa are worse, but she seems determined to not take it as an insult. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • And BTW, how does this conform with the "preventative" nature of blocks. This seems straight punitive, even viewed in the best light. What are you "preventing" Giano from doing, other than working in the mainspace? SDJ 20:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano is not prevented from working at all. He can email someone wikitext to have it posted, he can draft, and I even made suggestions for drafting without edit conflicts, which may not have occurred to him. But, naturally, prevention of uncivil behaviour on the site is one thing that a block can achieve. It seems that Giano II is still seeking to be uncivil to Theresa Knott. I think your comment has little merit. On the other hand, it prevents me from working in mainspace. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, Giano's the problem here. <rolls eyes> So, do you think the august body of arbs would have taken this same action in, say, three weeks? Not remotely, and that says all that need be said about the outgoing arbs and the statement made at this election. SDJ 20:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
We'll see. Nothing would please the ArbCom better than to spend less time discussing Giano II's doings. That won't change come 2009. If he'd like less attention, how about his cutting out the attention-seeking stuff? The bellowing, the picking of fights, and the general motormouth approach of typing first and thinking afterwards? Most people get through life by knowing this stuff, not ignoring it. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"Bellowing"? "Picking of fights"? That sounds like a certain esteemed body of arbitrators (at least 7 of them) that I currently serve as an editor. (I do serve you guys, right? We hold our positions only at your pleasure--or at least that's the way it seems from down here in normal wiki-land.) SDJ 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering that, but for his good editing, Giano II would have been thrown off the site ten times by now, you ought to be somewhat amazed by the tolerance shown. If he thinks that the patience of any committee is infinite, then that would be another aspect of his lack of general comprehension. Calling people "stupid" is just unacceptable? By the way, you shouldn't believe all you hear on Wikipedia. There aren't many reliable sources onsite in this kind of discussion. People of good sense just avoid those who continually talk nonsense about the ArbCom or anything else. Such people also don't confront types like Giano II who are obviously trouble. And when they express satisfaction at the blocks (oh yes, there are such people) they let us know privately. That is because of the general intimidation and pile-on, from the ignorant or over-trusting, that awaits those who tell the truth about the lamentable stuff that goes on, or even more do something about it. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that everyone else is the one who has a "lack of general comprehension"? Look above, where I raised the issue of being fobbed off for 3 months by Arbcom....look above where I have raised a WP:BLP issue (which to be fair to you has gone unanswered by all Arbcom and Jimbo himself)...the one thing that seems to be overlooked, and which I said to you above, is that the Arbcom committee does not control the site, the community does. We are not answerable to the Arbcom; the Arbcom is answerable to the community. And on this issue, I would say that the community at large does not agree with your sentiments as you have raised them here. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 21:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, you misrepresent the position. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"The lurkers support me in e-mail"? LOL, long time I haven't heard that meme. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Because of people like you? Charles Matthews (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
people like you? ...WHAT THE ...? --Van helsing (talk)
Charles Matthews is exactly right. The way some people try to get their way by attacking their "enemies" and repeating the same unfounded accusations over and over until it becomes the truth is deplorable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I was actually more surprised/thinking about the second sentence in Wikipedia:No personal attacks; the one that talks about comments, content and contributor. --Van helsing (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
People like people who call "ridiculous" enforcement of a standard policy after serious discussion by 12 Arbitrators, that sort of people. I'm glad for the support from Apoc2400. Nonsense is frequently talked, and it seemingly is often talked on the basis of support of and opposition to others. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, you'd better hurry up with that block review before somebody else sees the chance to become an hero. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm in the same time zone as Giano, and a night's sleep would do me good, at least. The pressure to "hurry up" is not conducive to good decisions. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

*poke* --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Funny that someone was talking about personal attacks. Yes, not much more editing tonight. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Charles M. Just curious, is Giano the most difficult editor to block? It seems there's always a riot occuring, after he gets blocked. Sorta like being in the movie Raging Bull, highly emotional & confusing. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a long saga about Giano, let us say. Which is why the ArbCom has ultimately had to take matters into its own hands. The difficulty lies in maverick behaviour on the part of admins who ignore the unblocking policy. You'd better ask them why they. I recall that Bob Dylan sang "to live outside the law you must be honest". Charles Matthews (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As you still persist in discussing me here: There is certainly a long saga of Giano being at loggerheads with this particular Arbcom. However, like almost 80% of the community I am looking forward to a joyous, happy and above all peaceful New Year. I am immensely relieved that after so long, your most recent actions (although it was FT2 who suggested to the Arbitration Committee that the block be extended) have shown the community not only some of the garbage I have had to put up with over the last year, but also how right and proper their recent voting has been. The editorship have shown they want change and I very much hope JWales is planning to give it to them. I also think it a huge pity that your Arbcom career has ended on such a low note for you; its a pity that this, your final incident is what you will be remembered for. The new Arbcom, if appointed, is a symbol of hope and I for one am looking forward to quietly writing pages and leaving important decisions in their more than capable hands. I know plans are afoot to have the old Arbs removed from the Arb mailing list, so freed from their interference everything looks promising for the new Arbs. Of course, one, albeit tenuous, problem remains, but that problem will hopefully not find the new Arbs quite the easy pushover he has found the old. Once the silly sanction that you placed on me, to encourage trolling and bating, is over in February, I doubt anyone will hear much from me again, my writing is not usually POV, concerned with peculiar sexual practices, living litigatious people or indeed any of the other subjects that seem to attract such unwelcome attention - In fact, I intend to return to being just another dull editor writing about dull decaying buildings and long dead people - something I have always been doing in spite of your best efforts. I do wish you a very long and happy retirement at Wikipedia, and I hope you receive the accolades for you future content writing which escaped you as an Arb. I don't suppose we shall have cause to communicate again, which I'm sure will be a satisfactory conclusion for both if us. Giano (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I disagree with much of it, and it would have been churlish simply to ignore those messages here. I am indeed a "dull editor", currently much occupied with John Milton and his context after the major anniversary on 9 December. Editing in mainspace has always taken up the bulk of my time. I served my time on ArbCom as I was asked to after election three years ago, and as I saw the job. Those above me in that poll are long gone, I have soldiered on the the end. I believe Wikipedia has plenty to look forward to in 2009, and it seems the same is true for you. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, RFAR

FYI, you're a named party in this RFAR.[5]. rootology (C)(T) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A comment would be much appreciated

Regarding finding 25.6, which I consider still very important. I'd very much like to learn why you voted as you did. You may also want to read this for my rationale in asking you to support Kirill's original finding. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"No evidence"? That is very strong to say. It would mean that you never did anything that could be read as crossing the line on basic content policies, for example. I abstained because I have not gone through all your edits. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Modifying a block

For your information, it is now possible to change a block of a user/IP address, without unblocking first. The way to do it is:

  1. Go to the block user page for the user/IP address.
  2. Set the new settings.
  3. Check the "Re-block the user with these settings" box.
  4. Click on the block button.

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

unilateral title change by mathsci

Hi Charles, Please restore some order at Criticism of nonstandard analysis as per AfD. Katzmik (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. Note that he is already busy editing the article in accordance with the new title. Katzmik (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have commented on the AfD page. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I moved it back. Katzmik (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
But see my comments. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hagedorn

I have expanded the Hagedorn article to include a list of people named Hagedorn. When you created the article back in 2004, Wikipedia probably didn't have articles on these people, but since it does now, I took the liberty to change or from a redirection page for Friedrich Hagedorn to a disambiguation page for many Hagedorns. There are plenty of Hagedorns to go around. Bobber0001 (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was appropriate, and something I often do myself in similar situations. Thanks for your trouble. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Help in bringing the AfD to a close

Hi Charles. Various editors, including CSTAR, CRGreathouse, Thenub, etc, seem to agree that the way forward is simply to rename the article to an "Impact" article with a broader scope as you and CSTAR suggested. Katzmik has already created a dummy article Influence of non-standard analysis with two redirects to preclude such a move; the majority of this dummy article was copied and pasted from text I added to the AfD that I transcribed and abbreviated from an article by Artigue. I would be grateful if once again you could provide guidance in the last "Consensus?" section of the AfD so that, as you quite rightly suggested, we can move forward with a new broad and appropriate encyclopedia article. I have no idea why Katzmik is being so disruptive but it does look suspiciously like WP:OWN. Best ragards, Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly help if everyone assumed good faith, all round. The AfD has been closed as indecisive. There is no particular reason why there shouldn't be a merged "influence and impact" article one day. It would be better to see the current crop of suggestions built up into an "impact" article, and to let the dust settle a little. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
These remarks would have been far more helpful if you could have made them two days ago on the AfD. I still have no idea on what basis you personally thought "Bishop-Keisler controversy" was a good title. If you were relying on your personal experience in RL, that was not a great idea. Wikipedia is not about recycling unsubstantiated mathematical gossip, no matter how appealing that might be to all of us. Mathsci (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
What was I saying about assuming good faith? The nomination was not particularly brilliant, and the secondary source that I supplied was removed by User:Thenub, as I pointed out in an appropriate place (namely to the person who removed it). You were encouraging Thenub to nominate, at around the same time; the removal therefore doesn't look good. You made an issue of the move, which was obviously a step in the right direction and was accompanied by due diligence by me, at the AfD, when you could have been wondering what the appropriate scope of an article would be. I ignored that as far as the AfD was concerned, given that it was already a dog's breakfast. Your comments aren't particularly a propos, since "unsubstantiated" is an ill-founded term here. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
"Not particularly brilliant", "dog's breakfast". Is it possible to drop this kind of unhelpful schoolboy language? "Unsubstantiated" means that there were no secondary sources that gave any evidence of a controversy. However, the literature, which I have been the only person so far to locate, details the experiments with the Keisler textbook and their evaluation by mathematical educationalists. You can treat me in whatever manner you like on-wiki (I have no choice), but please remember in future not to do this when privately discussing me with my peers. Please never cross that line again. Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Calling my article "dummy" is yet another WP:SLUR (I think user:mathsci is up to half a dozen of those by now). The article on the influence of NSA is a legitimate article that goes in the direction of your own suggestions at the AfD. I would be extremely happy to have your input into improving it. Katzmik (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Dummy, as in dummy variable. Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
You adopt a tone that is, what, too acrid; and you cite policy too freely as if it was there to win an argument for you, when it is in fact there to help us build a better encyclopedia. "Dog's breakfast" paraphrases the words of the closing admin ("train wreck"). You miss the point about secondary sources, which is that they are essential to establish notability of a topic, and therefore their removal ahead of an AfD is going to mislead. None of this is essential to the current issue, naturally. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
[Posts removed] Mathsci (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me have my area of expertise, why don't you, which is how people behave here, and how they should. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[Posts removed] Mathsci (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The previous comment by Mathsci is under any reasonable interpretation an ad-hominem attack. Could you follow your own wise advice above and refrain from such language? Once tempers flare in this manner in Wikipedia, it's usually downhill from there. May I suggest you take a short break from this? A Talk page is considered public forum in Wikipedia, so this is a discussion with the community at large and I don't think it's helping matters. Thanks. --CSTAR (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. Thanks, CSTAR. The issue was private, so will be dealt with in private. Mathsci (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Charles already said it, "how people behave here, and how they should". That's his area of expertise. --C S (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Zero ring

A tag has been placed on Zero ring requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. nishantjr (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

T:TDYK

I nominated a hook from an article you created, De vetula. hope you don't mind. :)
No, thank you. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton update

I forgot to tell you a few days ago: my laptop's harddrive died and took most of the additional prep work that I had for Milton. I returned some of the biographies that I was going to use to fix the biographical section of his page. I will go ahead and purchase a few more, check out some, etc. This time I will write my notes on notebook paper like I normally try to do. Anyway, I would like to "finish" Milton within a few weeks (i.e. all the information up and put a complete biography because there are some things that are missing and uncited). After that, we need to start working on weight issues and other such things. Thats just a heads up on my end. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think the political background is now in better shape (I have worked over John Selden and Henry Vane the Younger, the MPs he admired, and created John Streater, which means references to the republican politics can be made more precise). I'm impressed of course by the sheer volume of factual material that could be added to the main Milton article; but it should be possible to tidy up the first three decades of his life quite quickly. There would probably still be things to do, for example on Overton. The biographers is an interesting area. We have discussed the 19thC reception. I'll return to the main article some time, but I think after the previous pass through it really isn't so bad. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Charles, come to think of it, you are right, I apologize. Katzmik (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, would it be possible to change the outcome of the AfD at Bishop-Keisler controversy to "undecided" rather than the current poetic title? Katzmik (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks, that's terrific. Katzmik (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Charles Matthews/Archive 28's Day!

User:Charles Matthews/Archive 28 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Charles Matthews/Archive 28's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Charles Matthews/Archive 28!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Please explain yourself :)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Charles Matthews, Merry Christmas!

Charles Matthews,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Walenty Smalc

I have explained that this name is used in the Polish Biographical Dictionary. We should not translate names into English, but use original ones. "Marcin Śmiglecki" is also used, among other things, to identify the author on Google Print. I invite you to open the corresponding discussions on talk, we will see what the community thinks. PS. Be careful to avoid using Lithuanized names, which are not used outside Lithuanian literature (where they are often invented).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't understand at all. Smalcius was even German - he was born in Gotha. You should accept what is written at WP:NAME about using "common names", and that means names common in English, not Polish usage. You have made two unhelpful changes without any discussion, and you should simply admit you are wrong, and that the humanistic names are more appropriate. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Google search data of pages in English: Śmiglecki about 160, Smiglecius about 900. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for rewrite of Omar Amanat

Thanks for rewriting Omar Amanat, I noticed the edit summary warring and warned the 3 biggest offenders, but couldn't quite make a case for a 3RR report. Nicely done. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Entry for Strong Authentication

I would like to discuss the edits you made about strong authentication. You essentially stated that strong authentication = two-factor authentication, this is false. The essence of my initial entry was to state that strong authentication is not well defined. I give 3 references containing 3 different notions. One definition says that strong authentication is anything more than just simply sending a password. An example that fits in this definition is an authentication scheme where the authenticating entity sends a password as well as answers to a certain number of questions. There are not two factors here, only one, (something you know), but it is used more than once (stronger). So one reference (Formilab) provides this kind of definition. There is also a cryptographic oriented definition that says that strong authentication is challenge response authentication. This is what you will find in the Handbook of applied cryptography. Here again, you can do challenge response where the secret key is derived from a password, thus from an eavesdroppers perspective it is challenge response (you cannot replay), but the security of the scheme comes down to one factor (the password). You can also have challenge response like in SSL with private keys and certificates and no passwords associated, this is also challenge response but with one factor only.

The conclusion to all of this is that Strong Authentication is not equal to two-factor authentication. It is an idea that is based on the notion of strong which can be defined in several ways.

Best regards,

Anton Stiglic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astiglic (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I only formatted that entry: all the content was supplied by the anonymous editor who came before me. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, ok, good. I am still not very well familiar with the format of the history section.. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astiglic (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "A. Margalit"

A page you created, A. Margalit, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. BigHairRef | Talk 09:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a redirect. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be quite a collection of new redirects which you are adding to deal with new links which you yourself have added. I can't understand why you aren't adding links directly to the existing pages, rather than creating unnecessary redirects. David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
They are not "unnecessary". I have collected a large collection of names as they appear in scholarly works. Anyone reading such works may have (for example) initials and a surname for someone of interest. If they type such a non-full name into Wikipedia, shouldn't they be led to the appropriate article? Charles Matthews (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for De vetula

Updated DYK query On 24 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article De vetula, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING ISSUE

Hello. User: point-set topologist feels that recent behavior of myself and User:RobHar constitutes WP:OUTING. I am equally convinced that this is not the case, but at this point we are both seeking clarification on the relevant policies. Many of the exchanges on this matter have been deleted by PST; the clearest single extant source seems to be on User talk:RobHar. I would certainly appreciate if you would look into this -- or find another administrator to look into this -- and set us both straight on this policy matter. Thanks. Plclark (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that I understand what has been going on, it isn't outing. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Charles: The issue is now resolved but basically other editors have deemed the issue to be unnecessary on Plclark's part and not serious (please have a look at User talk:Plclark). So basically, the issue was not outing and did not violate any policies (Plclark was correct on that), but was still unnecessary and wrong in its own way. PST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That is not an accurate portrayal of other people's opinions, PST. And please sign your posts. RobHar (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Everyone should concentrate on improving the encyclopedia, shouldn't they? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Milton

I expanded the information and corrected it for his journey through Italy. He met a lot of important people, so I felt it was worth the extra 4k of information. I expanded on the details in his early life page (12k there). I relied on Lewalski's account primarily, but her's is the most critical for the early moments. She has 200 pages devoted to listing her references. I have Beer's and Campbell/Corns biographies to add for his later information (both are authoritative on his careers, so the three combined should help work out the later life). I don't plan on expanding the page beyond 70k before adding pictures and some other features, so it shouldn't violate any of the WP:SIZE requirements. Some more parts of his early life should be reworked (and the early life page expanded). I will try to come up with something for that soon. I have plenty of images that I can upload once I get access to a scanner (or just use a digital camera). I will put another 10 hours into Milton tomorrow and then I think we can reassess what needs to be emphasized on the page. If you would like, you can trim back any excessive details in the travel section (as they are covered in the early life, so a good summary can tighten it up a bit if needed). I need a break for a little bit. Cheers. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

One of your refs

Is your alias "Chris Sandoval"? If so, thanks a bunch for your work. There was no contact address at the publisher, but Note [45] should say "error of 56 years". -lysdexia 02:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.164.45 (talk)

Not me. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Birkhoff–Grothendieck theorem

Doesn't this theorem hold for vector bundles on for every field ? Ringspectrum (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is a result for locally free sheaves, yes, and that should be in the paper of Grothendieck. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I found the result and edited the article. Ringspectrum (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

Hodge conjecture as part of Grothendieck's standard conjectures

There is a generalisation of the Hodge conjecture as part of Grothendieck's standard conjectures. Would you like to add this to the article? If not, I'll read Kleiman's paper on standard conjectures and the Weil conjectures and add it to the article. Ringspectrum (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Standard conjectures on algebraic cycles#The Hodge standard conjecture. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi

James at the last London Wikipedians meeting suggested we make contact about an interview for a proposed narrowcast interview about the V&A Wikipedia Art project, Sunday 1 February. Camdentowner (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to tell me more. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward Garrard Marsh

Hi Charles,

I have done some editing on Edward Garrard Marsh. I believe you made the first draft of this page. Quite interesting. I'm actually working on Henry Williams (missionary) and I wanted to link to Marsh.

I've put all the links to external pages in footnotes. Unfortunately I couldn't trace all the links. See the discussion page. Perhaps you still know something about it. And I changed Aylestone to Aylesford.

Could you please check these things?

Thanks, Dick Bos (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I created it when I was working over the Bampton Lecturers. I remember that there was quite a lot of background on Marsh, from which I extracted some facts, since it isn't a good idea simply to say someone was influential. There is probably more to add on his network, and I'll try to see what Google now has - presumably more than in 2006. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A recent merge

Thanks for merging Irenism into Irenicism. A good move indeed. Could you also straighten out the talk page, which is currently at Talk:Irenism. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have the article at one spelling and the talk at the other. GRBerry 19:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GRBerry 19:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cowboy Hats

I am going to make changes to the Cowboy hat page see:text

-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Notability

Whoa, that was a long time ago... Anyway, you're free to revert my removal if you like, I won't stop you. There seem to be a few different schools of thought on "List of" pages; I generally subscribe to the "a person can be on a list when they have an article, and not before" school. hbent (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

October. I would disagree strongly with that idea of taking out links: removing redlinks from a list always requires some justification, and yours is just quite wrong. I would say your dismissive use of "nn" for some other editor's work in putting those together is not really acceptable at all. You are just shifting ground here. So while I am indeed free to put back in those well over 100 removals, I would feel it would show more comprehension on your part if you did. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup 2

Yes. Let's. Dsp13 (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the page. I'll alert likely people shortly. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've alerted those who attended the last, or commented on its page. I expect you might be able to think of other likely people. Dsp13 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mordell's conjecture

Today in a MSRI seminar talk, Sandor Kovacs mentioned that the wiki page of Mordell's conjecture said that Mordell's conjecture (now Falting's thm) implies Shafarevich's conj. and he was disappointed by that. It is true that Faltings proved both, but the correct implication should be that the Sha. Conj. implies the Mordell Conj. [Currently Mordell conj. is redirected to Faltings' thm. and claimed sha. conj is implied by it, which is rather confusing.] Would you please correct that?

(he said the guy who editted that was a go player, so I thought it was you. Thanks.)136.152.181.205 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you read Mordell's conjecture, it says that FT implies MD and SC, not that MD implies SC. And if you read the page history you'll see that I haven't edited the page since 2004. I think the complaint can be dealt with by adding just one word, to make plain that FT = Faltings' full result. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

William Le Queux

Hi Charles -

I noticed you contributed to the article on William Le Queux. Do you have any information on his interest or book on the Crime Club?

Kind regards, John Newton

A while ago, that. I'm afraid I don't have much to add about the author. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin Bernal

Hi. In linking my way about the system I chanced upon User:Charles Matthews/Bernal. Could you explain? If it's what I think it might be, there are some small errors, but it looks interesting. I've recently edited Martin Bernal and am interested in Black Athena. (I'm watching here for your reply.) SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a list of people mentioned in Black Athena (some edition I had). I think the errors are idiosyncratic spellings by Bernal. I use these list in various ways, but one is to create redirects from variant names I know are "out there" and people might want to look up here. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I thought. Do you want me to tell you about the errors/anomalies that I think I've noticed? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly possible that I have made some transcribing errors. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean transcribing errors, I meant links. Here's a sample, from the top:

  • J. Adams - links to dab
  • John Adams - links probably to wrong one
  • Queen Ahhotpe - should link to Ahhotep I
  • William Albright - links to dab, should be William F. Albright
  • Amenophis - links to dab
  • Ammenemes - should link to Amenemhat I
  • Amphion - links to dab
  • Aones - should link to Aonia
  • Arkadia - links to dab, should be Arcadia
  • Aton - links to dab, should be Aten

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a mixture of three kinds of things. Namely: (a) redirects that can be created; (b) links that need a {{dn}} template, since they lead to a dab page; (c) links that {{mnl}} template since they are "misleading name links". For example the Albright link is under (c), though really I must have added it to expand W. F. Albright with a forename.
Feel free to create redirects for redlinks under (a), anyway - that's something anyone can do. I've done the three you mention. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll probably leave it at that. However, I can't resist pointing out these:

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charles_Matthews/Archive_28&oldid=1187723993"