Jump to content

User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Francis Nepveu

Hi, if you have a moment can you find some sources for this/improve the text?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"François Nepveu" is a better bet as name. I have done the interwiki to the frWP page, not that it has so much. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Bishops of Meath (Roman Catholic)

Category:Bishops of Meath (Roman Catholic), which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger talk 05:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Giovanni Francisco Vigani

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Cassels & the Shapley-Folkman lemma

Dear Charles,

I remember that you had studied with Cassels , so I would alert you that David Eppstein has written an article on the Shapley-Folkman lemma, to whose literature Cassels has contributed an elegant article and a book of economics --- both left-hand pieces. You might enjoy looking at the Cassels article cited.

(Also, there is a brief note about J. W. S. Cassels's lectures in Peter Whittle's memoir of the Statistical Laboratory.)

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I remembered something Cassels had said about that work - I did see the article; I don't think he felt it was at all profound. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Not profound, just insightful and easy to read. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's a Cassels story, explaining some of my interest in Vigani (see the DYK above). There is a Vigani Room in Trinity College, Cambridge, and Cassels took me with a visiting mathematician there, to drink sherry. The sherry was there because J. K. Galbraith gave Trinity some money, to spend on something "they couldn't otherwise afford". Afterwards Cassels told me about counterexamples he had found to the mathematician's work. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Henry Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland

Please see Talk:Henry Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland, I think we had already put this to bed, but perhapse you would like to move your comment from my talk page over to that page so there is a record of you point where others can see it if this comes up again in the future. -- PBS (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

your Census post

Charles, could you slightly clarify "The tool I have mentioned above" in your 'Census' post on the DNB talk page. (I ask here so as not to amplify another thread on a project talk page which I expect to become monstrous in size!). Sorry not to be able to make the Cambridge meetup, btw. Next time I hope. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikisource thread. The tool is nice to use, but touchy like everything that drives the toolserver to its limits. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Charles_Matthews#Tools for more. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

'Tis indeed good, though I find integrating DNB material sensitively into an existing WP bio takes me an enormous time! Dsp13 (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:CSD

I am not sure whether my BOLDNESS is enough to start such a complex subject. It is nice to see an editor who uses WP:AGF. I wish all the best in the future. Many Regards, Yousou (report) 17:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Kehrli new POV dispute

You were involved in an arbitration a couple years ago. [[1]] A nearly identical behavior and dispute has arisen. [[2]] I was wondering if you could pop in there and try to clearly define the scope and purpose of Wikipedia to Kehrli [[3]] as apparently the outcome of the last dispute and the resulting ban did not make such things clear. To summarize: He/she has chosen a different obscure unit-like scaling procedure and is trying to synthesize a well defined unit based on selective use of a few literature examples in combination with the widely accepted rules of metrology. Very elegant work that might be a good idea, but novel nonetheless, and thus not for Wikipedia. I am not a primary participant in the dispute. He/she has also been going over much of the material that he/she was banned from (for 1 year) and is persisting in the course of action that he/she was banned for now that the ban is expired. I have not been policing these actions and the pages have fallen into subtly novel/POV pages.--Nick Y. (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles: we all agree that Wikipedia needs to use "standard notation". We just do not agree what standard notation means.
In short: They are pushing the jargon of a part of the mass spectrometrists, which are roughly 10'000 people worldwide. I am defending the terminology that is the international consensus, and also is used by some in their field (which I can prove).
Kehrli (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kehrli is using his interpretation of the tertiary sources IUPAP red book/IUPAC green book/ISO 31 to justify rejecting all of the scientific literature on Kendrick mass (dozens of publications in the past decade). The new unit of mass that Kehrli has defined is original research and inconsistent with multiple verifiable sources. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not rejecting any scientific literature on Kendrick mass analysis. I am just saying that most of it is written in a sloppy jargon that is not understandable by the wider public because it is not in line with the terminology according to the scientific consensus and that in Wikipedia we should use the terminology of those papers that are actually in line with the consensus terminology. Kehrli (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kkmurray is lying: the unit in my article Kendrick (unit) is defined in this recent publication: [4]. Kehrli (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing details: it is easy to counter allegations of OR by showing where in the literature the material is already covered. I can see that there can be apparent confusion if the substitution of "like for like" makes changes that are apparently significant but not really so. But that argument works both ways: if the changes (in notation) are simply that, then there shouldn't be so much basis for dispute. We have other principles, such as "if there are two equally good ways of saying something, insisting on changes can be disruptive". Charles Matthews (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles is correct:
  • it is easy to look up the definition of the Kendrick mass unit Ke here: [5].
  • it is easy to see that Murray's old terminology today has a meaning that makes absolutely no sense (it means a magic change of mass of a molecule)
  • it is easy to see that my article was first and that since I wrote it Murray is engaged in disruptive behavior, thereby violating the principle of god faith.
Kehrli (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I ask Kehrli to either supply specific examples of disruptive behavior on my part or to withdraw the above comment. --Kkmurray (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't asking for accusations of bad faith. What I said is not to be used for assertions of "ownership" either. I would like to clarify what is going on with the referencing of the material in question. If there is more than one point of view represented in the literature, there can be a case for mentioning all sides of an issue. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The one thing that Kehrli, Nick Y. and I agree on is that the primary source literature on Kendrick mass is confusing and contradictory. This suggests to me that we should be strictly adhering to WP:PSTS and the content of the Kendrick mass article should primarily rely on material from secondary sources and, also, information in primary source articles should not be interpreted unless that interpretation is backed up by a secondary source article. I have provided definitions of Kendrick mass taken from seven secondary source review articles in diverse fields of chemistry and biology at Talk:Kendrick_mass#Secondary_sources. From these sources an unbiased person will conclude 1) the correct definition is Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass x 14/14.01565, 2) the unit for Kendrick mass is Da according to "the mass of -CH2 is defined as 14.000 Da", and 3) the symbol or shorthand notation for Kendrick mass is "KM". There appear to be no secondary sources that support the claim that there is a unit of mass called a "Kendrick" or the use of "Ke" as a symbol or shorthand for this Kendrick unit or Kendrick mass in general. Unless a secondary source can be found to support the interpretation of the single primary source Kehrli claims is defining a Kendrick unit, I don't see how Kehrli's definition of Kendrick unit can be included in any Wikipedia article and be consistent with WP:NOR. It also seems that the POV fork Kendrick mass/Kendrick (unit) must be resolved in favor of Kendrick mass because the existance of the Kendrick (unit) article implies that there is in fact a Kendrick unit and therefore the article Kendrick (unit) is based entirely on a single primary source. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly favour having a single article and not having a POV fork from it. The NPOV principles mean that coverage should be proportionate. If there is a primary source suggesting a different handling, and that is all, NPOV would usually be satisfied just by mentioning it. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If I understand what you are saying, it would be acceptable to mention information from a primary source that suggests a Kendrick unit if it is done with NPOV and due balance is given to the numerous secondary source articles. I have the relevant quote from Kehrli's source Junninen 2010 here: Talk:Kendrick_mass#Junninen_2010 The definition might be inferred from "...Kendrick units (where m(12CH2)=14 Ke) instead of Dalton..." Would it be sufficient to have a statement such as "One publication has suggested that Kendrick mass be expressed in Kendrick units with symbol Ke" with appropriate reference to Junnien 2010? --Kkmurray (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If neutrally done - you should probably say "a recent publication" without suggesting it is the single source unless you can be sure of that - I would call that a typical way to deal with NPOV in this type of situation. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Turbulence modeling

The article Turbulence modeling has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page has multiple issues. Information on page is already contained on pages such as computational fluid dynamics, turbulence, Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations, large eddy simulation, etc. Deletion of this page will prevent information creep, scattered information, and redundant efforts related to Wikipedia's coverage of turbulence and turbulence modeling. See Talk page for a vote on this issue.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hope this isn't irrelevant, but I noticed you edited this page, so I thought I'd give you a heads-up. You can vote on this at the Turbulence models talk page. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are doing here. A PROD doesn't need a vote; while a vote should be at AfD to allow full participation. As I understand it the argument is that the content duplicates what is in other places, but that isn't an argument for deletion as it stands, but perhaps for some merging or splitting. I'm not an expert, by the way. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I mistakenly used PROD instead of AFD, so that's been fixed. I think I kind of messed this up, as it should have been a request for redirection or merging with computational fluid dynamics. Oh well! In any case, based on consensus I don't think the article's going anywhere. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to...

...Histon Road cemetery! Lucy Joan Slater sounds an interesting character, also. Dsp13 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I talked myself into doing this, really. But it's a worthy project. A propos the next Cambridge meetup, this Geograph photo of the cemetery Lodge reminds me. We worked a little on photos of blue plaques for Cambridge9, but there turned out to be a mystery about one, for Charles Humfrey who was an architect and spec builder reponsible for much housing in Cambridge in the Christ's Pieces area (1820s). For the next meetup, perhaps we should look at a grid square on Geograph and see what photos are needed. (The Geograph license allows transfer to Commons, I believe.) Charles Matthews (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that Edward Buckton Lamb, the architect, was an associate of William Henry Leeds who turns up on your periodicals list. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Earl of Kent

Hi Charles, while attempting to bring clarity to Henry Grey article discovered a discontinuity with the fourth earl in Doyle's The Official Baronage of England, vol. ii. (London, 1886). Suspect I may be a little against consensus on this one based upon all the pages that reflect the electronic pov. Am deferring to experience on this one in case of an easy out position. If not I'll forge ahead against the tide. CUoD (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on Talk:Henry Grey, 9th Earl of Kent. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Aglionby Slaney

Hi Charles

I know you're a wizard with DNB stuff ... so if you have a mo, would you like to take a look at Robert Aglionby Slaney to see if he's in one of the public domain issues of the DNB? He is certainly in the current DNB, and I think he probably is in the older ones, but am not sure that I am looking in the right places. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, s:Slaney, Robert Aglionby (DNB00). Letter S is done at Wikisource. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, will incorporate that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DNBfirst

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography#Too much of a good thing -- PBS (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

complete intersection

Hi Charles. I am not a wiki user, so excuse me if this is the wrong way to go about this. I noticed that you had done much of the work on the wiki page for complete intersection. That page mentions that the twisted cubic is not a complete intersection. From my understanding, though the twisited cubic is not an ideal-theoretic complete intersection, it is a set-theoretic complete intersection; it can be cut out with two polynomials. See for example the wiki page for twisted cubic. Should this be fixed?

Sjg sjg (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you could mention the difference between the concepts on that page, using the twisted cubic as an example. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir Edward Hales, 3rd Baronet

Hi. This article is now a direct copy of a 110-year-old article from the DNB (except for the odd word or two). I am now wondering, do you think this is a good Wikipedia article? As you are apparently involved with WikimediaUK on a professional basis it would be interesting to hear your opinion. Regards, Tryde (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:WP DNB. I think it is a much better article than it was. (By the way, I do work for WMUK, currently 2 days a week, and am involved in fundraiser work in the back office right now. This gives me no more and no less a right to an opinion than anyone else.) In brief:
  • The DNB is an RS in our sense, though it contains mistakes (as most reference works do).
  • I don't do "text dumps", I always edit and copy edit DNB text.
  • I have improved some points of factual content, removing what seemed to be a factual error (see the Talk page there).
  • My attitude actually to all the older content we have around is that it should be seen as scaffolding: the idea is to erect something better with its help, and then take it away.
I'm an eventualist, in other words. Conditioned by seven years editing here, I think the combination of the longer view and pluralism on approaches is what actually works. I hope that covers most of the ground. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The article in its former state was one of Boleyn's trademark two-sentence stubs. So to say that article is now better really doesn't say anything (apart from the content itself is not properly wikified, lacks in-line citations, lacks sections and contains hopelessly outdated language). You say you don't do "text dumps" - however, the article is now to 99% a direct copy of the DNB article. The thing is, if I would like to read a 110- or 120-year-old article about a historical figure I would turn to the DNB. If I would like to read a read a new article about the same historical person, I would turn to a modern encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. What happens now is that I end up with an almost exact replica of the 120-year-old DNB article. This annoys me and I presume many other readers.
We have already had this problem before with articles copied from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, mostly dating back to the early days of Wikipedia. I don't know how many articles I have tried to improve by re-writing them and also removing sections of the articles that were hilariously POV. You say that you consider the DNB articles to be scaffolding for later improvements. My experience with the 1911 Britannica articles is that they often stay that way for many years (one example is George Villiers, 4th Earl of Clarendon – and here I have actually removed some parts of the original material from Britannica). They overwhelm editors who could possibly have done great work top them without the original masses of text.
I have nothing against using the DNB as a source – I have myself used it for countless articles. I created John West, 1st Earl De La Warr yesterday mainly using the DNB article as a source – I'm not saying it's a good article but it's certainly better than having a copy of the DNB article in it's entirety.
I'm suggesting a different approach here. When you find a DNB article on a subject that is missing on Wikipedia, create a basic stub on that person and then provide a link to the DNB article, as has been done in the article on Joseph Yorke, 1st Baron Dover. This will make it easier for editors to expand the article using modern language and excluding content that may be considered to be of minor importance in todays society. Regards, Tryde (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I have set up a diff here so that I could test your assertion that I'd only changed the text by 1%. It would need more work to make my point in detail; but your figure is certainly wrong. I think you should check your facts before asserting things in such terms, anyway. It involves work to change "church of St. Sulpice" into a link to our article on it; this is conventional wikification work, and it is traditional to recognise it rather than be dismissive in the fashion you think appropriate. If you think it needs further work, go ahead. In any case you should moderate your language here.
There is actually nothing at all in content policy about your reactions. When I mentioned "pluralism", it is because I know perfectly well that there arguments from "what I'd like to see". These are on an entirely different footing. The community norms on this are quite clear: sofixit and "criticise the article's current state, not the editor".
If you simply negate pluralism, and deny that eventualism works (which is clear enough given where WP was in 2005 and is in 2010) I don't honestly see how we can discuss this. But I'll lay out more of my views.
EB1911 is often worse than DNB, and in fact can often be improved by using DNB material. I am in fact coming from an entirely different direction: after serious study I am convinced that absence of DNB material as "scaffolding" is holding back this project, at least when we're talking about British-related historical biography. At Wikisource, s:Wikisource:WikiProject DNB has now posted over 10,000 DNB biographies (out of 27,000) and intends to post them all. This will facilitate participation in the WikiProject set up here, recently, to discuss the best way to use the material. What has become clear to me is that the project should develop guidelines as one of its tasks; another is better referencing and templates; and a third is tracking and quality control. See Wikipedia:Merging encyclopedias for some of the background issues. The point is to learn from EB1911; but also to be constructive and argue from the need to use PD sources appropriately, not to be unpleasant about the whole issue in the hope of creating a classic "chilling effect" (a cliché I despise, but I think it is a good way to make the point here).
In short: I set up a WikiProject here; one aim of the WikiProject is to outline the good ways (plural) to use the DNB resource, as is being posted on Wikisource; I welcome those who would help develop such guidelines, but do not accept it is anyone's job here to be discouraging about the project's aim.
As you point out, I am now in work (and this is quite recent) for WMUK, and every fundraiser donation creates an email I must send. I much improved an article yesterday, in between slabs of dull office work, because I saw I could. I think I understand every point you have made: these are all things I have thought about. Either you are prepared to help with the project's write-up of DNB usage, or you are one of those who thinks carping is close enough to implementation to be effective. I beg to differ on that.
Charles Matthews (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
On the tactical side, writing the article made me want to pick up two books on James II that are on my shelves. One of them, a biography by Maurice Ashley, has quite a number of references to Hales, particularly the Godden case. If it's true for me, it is possibly true for others. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't expect "99%" to be taken literally - we can agree that most of the article is a copy of the DNB article, although you have made some changes. I also assume we agree that the article in its present state is not very good. From what I can understand of your lengthy reply above you accept that the article is not properly wikified, lacks in-line citations, lacks sections and contains hopelessly outdated language. Where we seem to disagree is that you think that copying the DNB article to Wikipedia will work as "scaffolding" that will eventually create a good article while I think that the mass of text will probably overwhelm and consequently deter many editors from improving it. Are you sure that my suggestion is not worth considering, namely to create short stubs and then add a link to the DNB article? The reader can then choose if he or she wants to read the DNB article, an editor won't feel overwhelmed and can use the DNB article to imrpove the article using modern language. I would also like to know if this process of adding DNB articles to Wikipedia has been discussed, for example at WP:BIOGRAPHY? You obviously have good intentions here but I personally think adding so many DNB articles will be detrimental to Wikipedia. I have never been accused of carping before, instead I think I'm viewed as someone who has made massive contributions to Wikipedia in areas involving British politics and peerage-related articles. I will continue to use the DNB as a source but I won't become involved in a project like the one you have initiated. Tryde (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, you are using overblown rhetoric when you say "99%"; and you continue with saying "hopelessly outdated" when you mean "outdated". Thompson Cooper is one of the worst antiquarians in the DNB, it is true. Inline citations are not mandatory, you know. It is a good idea to add them when mixing two or more sources in a big way, I'd agree. They can be added then. What you say about sections and wikification strikes me as nitpicking of an all-too-familiar kind.
"Are you sure" to use your language, that your purposes would not be better served by participation? This is a collaborative project, after all, and I'm presenting a normal kind of solution for a difference of views, namely creation of a guideline which with its Talk page would be the appropriate forum for raising the points that you raise. If your final offer is to say "detrimental" to the idea and express no wish to move ahead at all, I have to say that I had hoped for better.
Since this may be the end of this exchange of views, I'll just add that your "content that may be considered to be of minor importance in today's society" seems to be a misplaced argument. The correct "anti-cruft" argument is the "not indiscriminate" clause of WP:NOT. For example what clubs a politician belonged to may be key information or something we should omit, depending on the function of clubs in the politics of the time. It is not whether we think it should matter, but whether a historian can make a case for it mattering in its own time. This isn't a nitpick: the DNB is much better at picking up such facts than interpreting them correctly, it is true. I think most editors who apply DNB text cut out too little, not too much. I should like to get these ideas documented, but I cannot do everything at once given my current other commitments.
I appreciate that you have contributed here, and am interested to hear your views. I too have contributed, and I think I deserve a less vehement approach to a stub upgrade. See Thomas Rudd for another much needed use of DNB text, for example. Since you didn't add to Talk:Sir Edward Hales, 3rd Baronet, nor apparently look closely at what I actually did with the text, nor tagthe article for attention, but waded in here first, it seems to me you have put yourself in the wrong.
Charles Matthews (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, I am "in the wrong" for leaving you a message here, and not at Talk:Sir Edward Hales, 3rd Baronet? You say I am using "overblown rhetoric" - I have actually tried to be very restrained in what I'm saying here. I'm not involved in Wikipedia politics and not interested in citing different "policies" to prove a point. The core issue here is that I don't think it's in the interest of Wikipedia to have articles that are almost exact copies of 120-year-old articles from the DNB. I will leave a comment on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. If there are other users who agree with me then that's fine, otherwise I will just leave the matter. Tryde (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, this is all very negative, and not in my view anything to do with the founding principles of the site. We might as well be discussing Rambot all over again. I think you'll find they are more interested at the Biography WikiProject in the issues of unreferenced BLPs than in biographies of dead people when posted based on reputable sources, however old. If you're not interested in policies and guidelines as a way to shape what the future of our content is, I see why you are one of those who believe in applying verbal pressure towards your way of seeing things, rather than coming down to the common basis of our community. You are not in any sense being restrained; you are merely saying that if my way of editing doesn't fit in with your conceptions I'm somehow beyond the pale. Yes, given that I have other duties, it would have been conventional to bring up issues on the Talk page, and give me time to react, rather than writing off so cursorily a project that has taken 18 months to get to this point. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not writing off the project, I am rather suggesting a different approach which I think will be more beneficial to Wikipedia. Tryde (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are an editor with considerable experience, who uses DNB material, who wishes to propagate a view of how others might use it. But you are also refusing any cooperation, and have not contributed to a meeting of minds, given that you revert to the "flame war" register as a mode of expression, and are only prepared to discuss this in terms of what you want out of the situation.
Here is the "actual" diff I made to the raw DNB text. (I have had to align the text by putting in sections and taking off the lede and box Boleyn had posted, to get the diff displayed.) I think if you look at this diff, representing the work I did in adaptation without knowing that anyone was going to make an issue here, you will understand why I think you grossly overstated the point.
The DNB articles are being posted at Wikisource, and people will use them to add to WP, whatever you or I think or say. I have a thought-through proposal for "census" and "rating" mechanisms to make sure that the worst "text dump" usages are tracked and dealt with. The "anti-plagiarism" line that DNB usage must be accompanied with {{DNB}} is a start. Next comes the idea that with the text at Wikisource, editing of excess detail can be defended as not very harmful, given that the full DNB text will be on the end of a link. When the DNB is fully posted this will operate well. Factchecking of the old text can be done by those with ODNB access, which is not hard in the UK. As far as writing style is concerned, there are only basic guidelines up at the WikiProject; but there really should be a standalone page. I want to get the point where someone adding DNB text can be asked "have you seen the guideline?", and this will be an adequate induction. This is the correct outcome, in terms of bringing DNB usage in line with the MoS, for example. What is the point you want to get to?
Charles Matthews (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a shame that you are so tetchy about this. The issue was not how many changes you had made to the article, the issue was the the article, in my opinion, wasn't very good and didn't meet Wikipedia standards. You are of course entitled to disagree. I proposed a different approach, namely to create stubs and then add a link to the DNB article, as I thought this would be for the good of the encyclopedia. You are of course entitled to disagree with this as well. Wikipedia is certainly not so important to me that I will take this matter any further. I have raised my objections - if I find no support for my proposal there isn't very much I can do. Tryde (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You are shifting your ground, and hoping that ad hominem will cover that up (you made the 99% remark unprovoked, and accusations of "tetchiness" and so on are the oldest trick in the flame war book - do pack it in). OK, I will proceed with the guideline, and I will certainly include the option of using a DNB article to create a lede-type stub, rather than adapting the text. It might be appropriate in some cases; it might be a comfortable option for some editors. I shall be including the diff I have made, not because it's a perfect example at all (I see the blemishes), but because it is fairly representative of the task. You seem uninterested in the details, but the page will be there shortly if you have input. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for a "friend" of mine (permaban)

1. If "he" has been perma-banned (or indefinitely banned, not sure the exact terms), is it possible for him to ever contribute to the project again, without ban-evading.

2. If so, what is the procedure to appeal the ban or ask for it to be amended or whatever?

3. Would he get a new idendity or just rehabilitate the old one (does it make a difference on if he can come back from exile)?

4. What would be the repercussions if he just ban-evaded? Sock-puppeted? Would wikipedia go after him legally or something (in real life repercussions)?

72.82.33.250 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, this account was blocked as a sock of User:TCO.   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

guidelines for writing good articles

You seem really good at writing (and researching) biographical articles. Is there somewhere, where best practices are discussed. I have looked at some of the stuff on how to write articles and on Biography page, but didn't find what I want. It may be there, but there is a lot and I didn't see what I was looking for. I mean something a bit like what Tony has for copy editing, but for content. 72.82.33.250 (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually wouldn't put my talents so high. A lot of what I do now is reuse of old public domain material. In the past I did do historical biography by "assembling" short referenced sentence units, so that basically there were facts strung together with footnotes. Neither of these are orthodox forms of writing here, and would even count as a bit controversial.
For example, I upgraded Andreas Divus from a short stub, and that was basically down to research. I used a couple of books on my shelves to get started, but that is mostly intensive use of Google. And while a Google tutorial would be useful to some people (basic point is to vary searches and feed back what you learn into search terms) I suppose this all counts as well known.
Granville Wheler is the most recent creation, and it uses Dictionary of National Biography text. Now not everyone knows their way around the DNB; but I have to, since I spend most of my wiki time on it. The pieces of knowhow that went into that were: the resource; the fact that this is a subarticle of an article on the father; and knowledge of the Venn database at http://venn.csi.cam.ac.uk/. There was a bit of general discussion on resources at Wikipedia_talk:WP_DNB#Possibly_broadening_scope.
Since what I write tends to be stripped down, or based on older text, it is not in fact so close to the writing guides we have. It is too concise in some ways, and in other ways too far from colloquial English. I'm certainly not going to law down the law on how to write. There is a long thread above about this.
I'd be glad to share information about how to write biographies, but in a sense it depends on which area we're talking about. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of R. Flint

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on R. Flint 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, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a 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 {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Half Price 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Flint (theologian)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Robert Flint (theologian) 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, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a 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 {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Half Price 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Charles Matthews. You have new messages at Half price's talk page.
Message added 21:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

Any idea if this content is public domain or is it a mirror of wikipedia?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

s:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Abbey of Göttweig is the same: definitely public domain. New Advent is close to copyfraud here, but there is interesting history. The CE only got transcribed with the help of the Pope; and interestingly (for DNB fans anyway) the work was farmed out to groups of Catholics to do. The work was not at all well done: see s:Wikisource:WikiProject Catholic Encyclopedia Upgrade, and really needs to be done again on Wikisource, where there is now a complete set of scans. In other words the CE needs the DNB treatment, but for different reasons. There is no current adequate and free version of the DNB (1885-1900) online at all in plain text that one can copy. There is for the CE, but it is pretty well just a collection of New Advent and four mirrors. The Wikisource mirror is bad because it has the faults of the New Advent posting (e.g. missing references section, no Greek or Hebrew text, typos, spurious format and adaptations) plus others introduced by the bot posting.
Gresham's Law operates here: once New Advent's posting was up, it dominated. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

2006 comment and rhetorical question still applies today

Today I quoted/referenced a comment you made back in 2006 in this Afd discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cliburn_(surname). I've been trying to make this same point to this person for about a week now, and in the process of trying to understand his perspective found that you were in the same position almost five years ago! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is never a good premise that "I know how everyone in the world ever will search Wikipedia". Good luck with the discussion. Almost five years ago, indeed; so long that the current standard closure notice with the words No further edits should be made to this page is absent. You should really move that thread.
And why not make an essay from it, instead of debating. Write on the general principle, put in your example, and see what others can add? "You don't know how Wikipedia is searched and neither do I" might be a title. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Arthur Boyars

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Arthur Boyars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for that interesting conversation on Sunday. I'm slowly formulating my own analysis and may write it down some time. ϢereSpielChequers 11:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It looks more like pre-emptive history than currently relevant, as has indeed been said on wikien-l. But the path-dependence of some social (and policy) things on Wikipedia is quite high: we cannot expunge some past events yet. (Cue strained metaphor and attempted joke about elephant's memory and elephants in the room. Which in some cases would not be totally off-topic.) Charles Matthews (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

DNB

Hello, Charles. I've been creating a lot of articles from the DNB, but they are still in Category:DNB no WP; some of them were created 3 weeks ago. Does it just take a while to come off the category, or do I need to do something? Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, simple explanation. s:Category:DNB No WP is generated automatically (by a template) and it picks out DNB articles on Wikisource for which the "wikipedia=" field in the header is still blank. So you just need to copy the name of the WP article into that field. In other words, we want the original on WS and the adaptation on WP to link both ways.
You might be interested in one of the tools, actually. It's the one called "DNB match" on s:User:Charles_Matthews#tools. Running it with something like ?letter=Wh at the end can produce a list of possible matches of WS and WP articles. Where there is already a match you can do just the same thing (i.e. fill in the "wikipedia=" field). Where there isn't, it should be that WP is missing the article. I've just done Wh, and there were 43 found, with some matching to do. (This is on the toolserver, meaning the program is touchy and sometimes fails. Use two letters, since one is typically too long a search.)
Thanks for working on the DNB. Much as I'd like to, no time really at the moment. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Society

Hello Charles, its Vinesh Patel here, whom you met at the 41st London meet up last Sunday. I just wanted to say I have attempted to e-mail you using the "E-mail user" system and hope this gets through to you. Please let me know if you don't get it; thanks for you help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnypatel (talk • contribs) 23:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Vinesh, I have your mail. In fact I mailed you on Monday, and it's not clear why you didn't receive that mail. (It is possible that it was caught up in moderation for a chapter list to which I BCCed it.) In any case I'm very glad to hear from you, and will certainly reply so we get everything straightened out. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay then....

Given you have a longitudinal interest and have written about the development of the 'pedia, I figured you may be interested in a carrots instead of sticks approach to content building - the wikicup is held annually, and rewards audited content - hence I was thinking of multipliers - trick is to think of some ungameable and easy to judge ones...have a look at --> Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Okay_-_bombs_away. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is I disagree with the whole idea, sorry. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Erm..why? I guess my involvement and thinking is that it exists in and of itself and a number of editors have found participation fun. My angle was given this, was/is there a way of rewarding focus on core content. Hence the proposal(s). Last year was largely fun, and it was tightly run. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, we completely differ, then. There seems to be an inherent lameness in the point-scoring approach, particularly anything to do with DYKs. If this is an unfamiliar approach, then I think it deserves to be less so. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not an unfamiliar approach as I've seen parts of the community who are (let's day) lukewarm to cooler to both DYK and wikicup. From where I sit, I see that editing the 'pedia has changed alot in the past five years and needs more rigor now. i.e. not only can one just add material but one has to find and format inline referencing, which I suspect many passersby have not the energy or inclination to do. Hence any scheme which promotes referencing is a good one. However, as with all complex entities, one cannot separate out the good bits from the bad, so it is a matter of practicalities. One only has to look around to see how much humans love to collect sets of trinkets (McDonald's toys, football cards, trainspotting etc., wikipedia awards) and compete (ubiquitous) - we can't change that- anyway, I now know your view on this and you know mine. Ah well, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can think of about ten thousand things around the site that need doing, that simply need attention, and that I would rate above the time-sink DYK has clearly become. The "recognition" aspect of life here has also drifted well away from the idea that a wiki is about collective editing, in my view. There are areas in which good work is done: on high-quality articles, as curation (WikiProjects), and so on. I don't see that centralising recognition is the right approach, at all. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I think DYK serves a good purpose in the referencing as well of expanding of new articles and stubs - the 1500 characters is often just enough for an article to get a bit of 'meat' on the bare bones (I concede there have been some dramas lately but on the whole I think it is a net positive). Also, the audited content often expands according to active wikiprojects such as Milhist, Birds, dinos (mainly '06-'08), whales ('05) and a few others - I look at the WP:FA page and I see 'bulges' in all sorts of areas where there are active editors and deficits in others - furthermore, the (justified) higher standards of FAC make some of the bigger core articles long projects indeed. All the auditing areas are good examples of collaobrative editing, as are the active wikiprojects - the trick is how do we encourage active collaboration elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm interested in several neglected things, for example:
  • Stub upgrades and new article creation from PD material on Wikisource (especially the DNB);
  • Referencing upgrades (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, at least 5000 places to use the template, and possibly give a link to the PD version);
  • Adding images via the FIST tool that picks up what is available along interwiki links.
These should all just happen. My concern is that newcomers assume that FA and DYK are the "real business" of the site, because of the fuss made of them. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
See this is the thing - I agree this should all just happen, but am concerned that it doesn't. So question is, what do we do then...hence the auditing process for pushing folks that extra bit to add in the inline references...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Inline referencing is good. But it has become a fetish: I have talked to a couple of people, who clearly should know better, who seem to think it is laid down in the MoS. Not yet. Quality not quantity still applies. I do a lot with {{DNB}}, and the difference between {{DNB}} and {{DNB|wstitle=Henry V}} is that if the template is filled in, you can go read the original on Wikisource. This is much more important to verifiability than adding inline refs to each para: and it requires work out of sight of some of the aspects of WP you are talking about.

We do have to remember what is the means, and what the end, and over-emphasis on say process, or say auditing, or say lawyerish things in the area of ArbCom, have proliferated because of a certain lack of perspective on how things work on the round. Convince me you have a plan addressing that complex of issues, and I'll get interested. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(belatedly) okay, my background in this is interest in how the goal (the production of a comprehensive global encyclopedia with nice formatting and some degree of uniformity) and the editing habits of volunteers in producing content mix. Push too hard, one drives volunteers away, or don't push at all and inequities and shortfalls risk being exaggerated. So the question there is how to make the pushing attractive (which is where linking of rewards such as competitions etc. comes in). The other question is identifying where and how the shortfalls are arising. These include improving inline referencing - which doesn't come as naturally as the instant gratification of adding material in an almost stream-of-conscious manner (which was highly necessary early on in the early growth phase, up to 2005-06 or so), and content issues. The polishing off of articles is an essential component of producing a stable base (principally the Featured Articles) -the making of articles which are comprehensive, accessible and referenced yet concise. Problem is, as the process has grown more rigorous, it has become much easier to polish esoteric rather than general content (also a side effect of the honours roll). Thus my interest in the wikicup. One can't change human nature in its collection of trinkets and recognition, so what can one do to steer the reward system align more closely with encyclopedic objectives? (this is where DYK, GA and FA have been key cogs in getting folks to adopt inline references. The positive connotation of seeing the little blue subscript numbers is such that they don't jar my reading anymore...anyway, this is where I am coming from. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
PS: This is where recognising what illogical and nostalgia-filled critters humans are....background in psychiatry/psychology helps us...I always tell my patients that if we were all logical we'd be driving bright yellow or orange cars as they are the safest (well, those not riding bikes which are substantially healthier from a cardiovascular (but not orthopedic) point of view anyway...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Go#Mingjiu_Jiang_Can_you_help.?

Hi Charles. A couple of us have tried the usual sources, but have drawn a blank for Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Go#Mingjiu_Jiang_Can_you_help?.

Any chance you could suggest further resources for us? Thanks in advance, Trafford09 (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There is the GoGoD CD-ROM for all of these biographies. He is in there, and I have to explain why I stopped using it (which explains also why I stopped working on go articles, really). John Fairbairn actually asked me to stop putting information from the GoGoD disc up here, some years ago. It really is the ultimate "reliable source" for go biography in English, but I have of course respected John's wishes in the matter. I have no reason to believe that attitude has changed, and in fact I have been in touch with GoGoD on matters to do with Ugandan go just recently, where they have been very helpful.
So I have bit of a dilemma here. I have just tried the Japanese reading "Ko Meikyu" and Google gives nothing. I have reason to believe the player is now in the USA anyway, may not be playing go as a pro therefore. Marginal.
The other big resource is Go World on disc as PDF. I was given this a while ago and haven't yet learned how to do the full-width search operation. That would generally be very useful for such work, in fact. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that's useful background info., and gives me some ideas. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Geobox

Hi Charles. I was wondering if you could copy and paste this and update Template:Geobox. Its practically the same but it has the maps moved nearer the top where they belong..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See Template talk:Geobox#map_position. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Captain R. T. Claridge

Thanks for your attention to the Captain R. T. Claridge article, and your attention to the authorlink for Algernon Graves. The Claridge article is essentially in maintenance phase now (minor tweaks notwithstanding, but substantive information on this fellow has been exhausted for now, and Wikipedia has an excessive amount of incmplete articles - like Algernon Graves - requiring attention), and your effort in maintaining the integrity of the Claridge article is appreciated. Wotnow (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Early MPs and DNB

Hi Charles I see you are raising concerns about 17th century MPs. At the moment I am trying to build up articles on the pre-Restoration MPs which is the devil's own job because the sources are often unreliable and inconsistent. I am building up lists by parliament and there are two documents at least that list MPs by parliament which are Browne Willis and Cobbett although these sometimes differ. The DNB is wrong in instances as I have seen it attribute an MP to a county instead of the borough and vice versa (can't remember where). I am hopeful that the power of WP gives us an opportunity get a more accurate picture. Regards Motmit (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, certainly a worthy project. I have some relevant books. I am generally interested in making the best use of the old DNB text here; but that doesn't extend as far as trusting it 100%. Searching the updated ODNB for a constituency can often throw up material of considerable interest. But I think it does need to go constituency by constituency, making it all a long job. Also the people lead one into "gentry" history, which is a bit of a maze generally though there can be plenty of background in some cases. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello. I believe that you may be able to help with an issue over this page. The external page linked to currently contains racist and anti-semitic comments and this link cannot be appropriate for a user page on Wikipedia, whatever the reason for displaying it. I notified the user and he took the external page down briefly but it is now back again. Could you have a word with him please? 212.183.140.41 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe I understand why that link is there. Since WP:SOAPBOX explicitly applies to user pages, it is arguable that the link on User:Mathsci contradicts that policy; certainly it looks as if it goes against its spirit. You could mention this opinion of mine to him. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. 212.183.140.3 (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

These are all sockpuppets of Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), site-banned by ArbCom and indenfinitely community banned (as an indirect consequence of the postings by the third IP listed). Since this user has already shown an ability to dissimulate on wikipedia (the third IP and as BT35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BT38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), it is very likely that the IPs posting above are sockpuppets of Mikemikev. I don't think any further comment is necessary, since ArbCom is already completely familiar with this serial sockpuppeteer, the "hate-speech" elements of some his edits (one or two of which have been rev-delled by arbitrators) and his dissimulation. Mathsci (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't asked to comment on Mikemikev. I was asked to comment on an external link from your userpage to some hate speech. As I said, I believed I understood why the link was there. The question would be whether the ArbCom needs you to be involved in the sockpuppet matter in this fashion; since vigilantism is not encouraged (point 1) and your form of participation is so easily misunderstood (point 2). Charles Matthews (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond in private: you'll see why. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Do you reckon Category:Anglican archdeacons in Australia etc. should be subcats of Category:Australian Anglican priests? Dsp13 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be seem to be right. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Propagator

Hi, as Heated propagator was virtually unfindable when I searched for it (I searched for Propagator), I have moved the article to prominence at Propagator and moved the other article to Propagator (Quantum Theory). Should make it much more visible - I've also linked to our Propagator article from Plant propagation (I've created a new section in there). Cheers! --PopUpPirate (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with doing that is this: there are over 100 existing links to the physics concept of propagator, and you have broken them. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

I'm sorry for editing the date on Charles Mayo (Anglo-Saxon scholar). Thanks for clarifying, I'll be sure to not do that again.(: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewm27 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


User Talk:Ohnoitsjamie section John Baker (artist)

Hello, Charles, I was wondering if you could help me here. Could you have a look at this discussion and see if it's a valid reason for deletion? I am loath to continue what I've been doing on the DNB project at the moment in case this happens again. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have sorted it out and left messages. Basically it was a misunderstanding. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I feel confident to continue then. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

AIV report on 80.238.1.135

You reported 80.238.1.135 to AIV in this edit. I have looked at all of the IPs edits so far this year. Apart from two edits ([6] and [7]) which removed content without any explanation I can't see any problem. I have also looked at the IP's two edits to UD Marbella. They were certainly unconstructive, but they were a while back, and just two rather silly isolated edits. There may be a bigger picture that I have not noticed, but if so could you give more information as to what concerns you, either on my talk page or via email? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For context, I was dealing with an enquiry (BLP matter) on Wikimedia UK's OTRS about this, and had to treat the matter at arm's length for that reason. This seems to be an erratic editor, and there are warnings on the talk page for the IP. Not necessarily enough for a block: it is the edits to UD Marbella that are a concern, and I think the last actual warning was November (i.e. the bad edits were subsequent to the warning). So there were a couple of reasons for me to ask someone else to look over the editor. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Certainly the edits you refer to are a BLP concern, but I'm not sure there is much to be done about it at this date. I have posted a message to the IP's talk page: perhaps that will be some help. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mayors of Canterbury

Hi Charles. After adding a Category "Mayors of Canterbury" to a few pages, I decided to start a page for the topic. It's currently in my Sandbox: User:DavidShaw/Sandbox/Mayors of Canterbury (Kent). I've found an online version of a book of 1801 which gives a full list of Canterbury mayors up to 1800. I've started to add names from this to my existing names (up to 1470 at the moment). I thought I would check with you about the value and/or the presentation of a full list of this sort. Most of the names do not seem to have pages to link to (and are not likely to have. I would welcome your feedback. David. Vidoue (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems all right to me, actually. Something like High Sheriff of Kent also is not likely to consist all of blue links. It would be OK to post the list without links: I don't think we'd take it that the office itself makes someone notable, so redlinks would be appropriate only in some cases. The ODNB turns up a few mentions: Peter Manwood is a clear hit, but it's mostly relatives. British History Online has enough to show that the position was significant. So I think it would be useful rather than otherwise. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

John Baker (artist)

Thanks for letting me know, I did not know that. Wabbit98 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

All over the place

Hello Charles. I saw your tweak to the New College at Hackney - those Dissenting Academies can be so confusing, with similar names and multiple moves. Then I looked on your bio and saw you are working for Wikimedia: busy week! I was hoping to be at the British Library today; are you there? BrainyBabe (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No actually: things to do and I went to the Jimbo party last night. I have just posted Samuel Morton Savage but now need lunch. There is plenty to fill in still, in that area, that can be started off with DNB text. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The closest I got to Jimbo was the GLAMwiki funfair at the British Museum a month or two back. I spent last night creating Essex Street Chapel; care to take a look (after lunch)? BrainyBabe (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I see a dozen references to Essex Street Chapel in the ODNB. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your kind additions! BrainyBabe (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

second opinion

A user placed a speedy delete notice on my talk page, a copyright violation, they refused to remove it and twice blanked my request [8] I think it appropriate that someone besides myself removes the notice on my talk, for those looking at the page history, so would you mind doing that? cygnis insignis 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. There is actually no reason why you shouldn't take down such notifications. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, though I disagree that would reduce doubts and confusion. It is an extension of the notice at article, and that has explicit instructions not to do that. Any looking at the page history of my talk will see that another user, a well respected one in this case, thought the notice could be removed. I consider it a very serious accusation, and have never done anything even remotely resembling that. cygnis insignis 17:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Not how I read it. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Delaney for deletion

The article Daniel Delaney is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Delaney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Damiens.rf 19:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson (dramatist)

Just wanted to sat THANK YOU for starting this article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Existence#Mathematics

Hello Charles. I wonder if I can interest you in Existence#Mathematics. It is a rather miscellaneous set of, ermm, well I'm sure you could read it yourself.

Anyway, I can see that there is a decent section to be written about existence proofs, the real-world existence of the various concepts in maths (numbers, etc). Do you happen to know if such already exists? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The closest is probably constructive proof, which is considerably better than the section you're pointing me towards. Which at least should be rewritten. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fogge Family

You are basing the father of Sir John Fogge on ONE source that differs with over five other sources?! Please review these before you keep changing statements. Here are a few Crofts Peerage; The Main Historical; Fogge Family of America; The Antiquary and see The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, by Gerald Paget, Vol. I, p. 95. You can also see this page which has sources and names the best source on the family gives his father's name as William Fogge. Sir John Fogge, this is from Archaelogica Cantiana, Vol 5, 1863, “The Family Chronicle of Richard Fogge”. The article from the Oxford Dictionary was written in 2009. Where is this person getting her information from if all these sources written well before 2009 name his father as Sir William? -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the article is written by Rosemary Horrox, who is a leading academic expert on the period; she is at the University of Cambridge and has written for example Richard III: a study of service (1991). What she writes is that Sir John Fogge "was the son of John Fogge, esquire, the second surviving son of Sir Thomas Fogge (d. 1407). He was born c.1417, since he was of legal age in 1438, but he only came to prominence when he inherited the lands of the senior line on the death of Sir Thomas's grandson and heir, William." This explains the position. I know that older sources tend to agree with Edward Hasted, writing about the history of Kent around 1800. But it is quite plausible that Hasted should be wrong about a detail of this kind. The ODNB is not infallible either, but we'd usually take it to represent the view of modern scholars.
She quotes her sources, and for the early part of Fogge's life they are "Sources: TNA: PRO · Chancery records · A. J. Pearman, History of Ashford (1868) · T. G. F. [T. G. Faussett], ‘Family chronicle of Richard Fogge, of Danes Court, in Tilmanstone’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 5 (1862–3), 112–32".·Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

DNB

Hello, Charles. I'm having a bit of trouble with some of the articles I've left out in Category:DNB no WP and was wondering if you could help with the first 14 and also Cernach. Thanks for any help you can offer, Boleyn (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The ones in s:Category:DNB No WP before Bricmore, H.? Those are pages created to reproduce the DNB's own internal system of "redirects" (as the Cernach page is). They're not particularly relevant to us here at WP. At Wikisource some of the editors post them, as a way of getting the maximum out of the DNB text. Or did you mean something else? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all the remaining Bs. I'd rather get rid of them so I don't have to keep scrolling down to create articles, but aren't sure what I can do with them. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly a way (since you have DNB access), with a bit more effort. For example, for the "Balfe, Victoria" entry it says to go to Crampton. I have done that on the ODNB site just now: and got to http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/olddnb/6598 via the "DNB Archive" link on http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6598?docPos=1. This is called "Crampton, Victoire, Lady (1837–1871), singer, by G. C. Boase. Published 1888." The text is similar to what would be in the Wikisource version if it were there: and it is also public domain. So you can use it to create an article. What I do in this cases is to use a reference "Dictionary of National Biography, Crampton, Victoire, Lady (1837–1871) ..." and also add the {{DNB}} template for attribution. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Shapley-Folkman lemma: GA status and revisions

Hi Charles!

The Shapley-Folkman lemma received GA status yesterday.

Today, I tried to make the subsection of applications in optimization more readable and focused; I used first a heuristic explanation (with the Bourbaki zig-zag danger sign) and then a subsection with more definitions and then the true version. If this is too weird, then perhaps you could advise me on damage control: I can always revert the editing.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was actually a bit more worried about the implicit thought that the Brouwer fixed-point theorem only applies to convex sets ... Charles Matthews (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I suppose that it could be applied to sets that are homeomorphic to convex sets? (I'll refresh my memory, which was based on Give Me That Old Time Religion: It was good enough for von Neumann, it's good enough for me! ;) Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I corrected the claim of necessity. Would you hunt & exterminate any weasel words (from the revised paragraph), please? Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How can one show a change of heart?

Charles, some time ago you commented on my person, voicing some strong criticism and suggesting that you are not seeing enough "evidence of a more profound change of hear". In the months since I tried to become a better editor and recently an editor reminded me of your comment and suggested that I ask you if you are seeing any positive "change of heart" in my editing. Looking at your aforementioned comment, I agree that you can be hardly accused of friendly bias towards my person. I have always believed that constructive criticism can only help, hence I would indeed appreciate your opinion, advice, suggestions and the like. Another of my strong believes with regards to Wikipedia is that good-faithed editors who started on the wrong foot can move beyond it and become good and respectful wiki-colleagues, I hope this will be the case here as well. Looking forward to hearing from you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, I do not follow your editing, and we work in different areas. We have had few interactions on the site. My duties as an Arbitrator led me to see you as a advocate for a nationalistic POV; and that view was reinforced by just a small number of experiences with your edits as a colleague. If you now see things differently, that is good. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you recall any of those edits in particular? It can be difficult to look back and see how one has changed (if at all), and looking at some old diffs of mine could help me answer your query. I do have a further question for you, Charles. How can one distinguish between a user pushing for a nationalistic POV, and a user defending against it? Lastly, would you mind if I were to advertise our discussion to a colleague or two? I'd like to see whether they share your opinion or not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
On Talk:Martinus Smiglecius you argued "shouldn't a Polish person use a Polish name?". No, that isn't the policy and for early modern historical figures it isn't so appropriate. On Talk:Valentinus Smalcius you argued that "PSB tends to be the most reliable source". In other words you were more interested in having a Polish-sounding name (Smalcius was a German who settled in Poland), than in following the actual policy. Since both of those comments of yours were made on the same day, they made quite an impression on me. Those were two years ago, of course. I'd be glad to think that you now thought otherwise. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
That bring memories. Policies, you say... well, as usual, they are of little help. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) is rather vague: Asian countries and ancient Romans (out of all things) seem to have specific guidelines, patronymics are not recommended. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Poland-related articles) does not mention people. So we are left with the generic Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), with is generic "use most common version on Google" advice. (And if you think that we should have a policy that actually states that people from some period should have their names spelled in Latin, I'd suggest you try to pass it as a policy - if we reach a consensus on that, it may be useful in the future).
On MS I did not really argue but asked - and after your reply it was me who moved the article back to the Latin version, as I agreed it was indeed more popular in English language, even through you did not actually link to any specific policy to back up your claims (I likely researched it back then just like i had to do now)... you'd think that a nationalist POV pusher wouldn't have given in that easily, perhaps? Moving to VS, the situation is similar, other than the fact that the most reliable source I found used the Polish version. But again, English variant was much more popular and I didn't dispute the move once that was pointed out.
Perhaps it is different for an English speaker on an English wiki, but for a foreign language contributor it takes a while to get used to seeing different spellings, and I find it rather surprising that one would see a discussion about which variant to use as indicative of nationalistic viewpoint. I believe it is reasonable and expected that people will have their biases; NPOV policy says somewhere that there are no unbiased editors. I also expect that almost everybody has some slight bias towards a certain country (nation, region, etc.). Now, I've met editors whom I do count as nationalist POV-pushers, but per this, a little more is required - such as constant edit warring and near or total inability to admit that the other side may have a point. I believe I was and I am always open to a reasonable discussion, and have been known to change my mind (vide MS move I reverted myself).
Are those two cases all you can recall? Consider the following examples: in December last year I supported the use of diactrics in Zürich, Gerhard Schröder and François Mitterrand - does it make me a Swiss-German-French nationalist POV pusher? :) The fact that I enjoy Polish food more than Indian does not mean I think Poland superior to India (and the fact that I am really into Mexican recently doesn't mean I believe in Mexico-uber-alles, neither)... Just yesterday I asked about grammar use in a name of an article - I hope you don't think I am a grammar nazi? :) I could go on, but I think my point here is sufficiently clear.
You say that your impression was that I was "more interested in having a Polish-sounding name... than in following the actual policy". My belief is that given no clear policy or argument, I will chose a Polish (or other local name) for a person (place, etc.) that seems to have connections to that region, but when an argument (policy) for a different use is presented, I am always willing to readjust my position in a civil, consensus-reaching fashion.
Bottom line, Charles, is that based on the examples you provided so far I think I acted in a neutral fashion back then; the only difference I see about myself back then and now is that now I'd be more likely to do a quick Google Book name search myself to check for most common spelling before asking about it. Do you still think I was/am a nationalist POV-pusher?
PS. I will also add that I certainly started as a nationalist POV-pusher - as I believe is the case with most if not all foreign contributors. We are all taught, in schools accross the world, superiority of one's culture and country (I recommend this excellent book for more on that subject). Fortunately, cultural relativism is a strong part of Western culture, and that makes it easy for many individuals to escape from the "simple truths" that are molded into us in schools; for me that experience occurred during the work on one of my first FAs (on Polish-Soviet War), when User:172 helped me to realize that my viewpoint back then was quite Poland-centric, and that other viewpoints need to be accommodated as equal. While I doubt one can totally eradicate such biases from their (sub)consciousness (and I am sure my bias still remains, on some level), I believe that I managed to stay close to the NPOV ideal ever since. It is the editors who refuse to adjust their viewpoints, and keep defending the "simple truths" they've grown up with, that are, in my book, nationalistic POV-pushers. Again, I'll be looking forward to your reply. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Protesting too much? You certainly believe more in quantity of self-justification than quality. The point, really, is that Latin names do not fit at all with the tenuous "excuse" that there is other national POV pushing here. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot make any sense of you reply above :( The first sentence confused me, and it got worse from there on. Perhaps my English skills failed me here. PS. I am still waiting for you to comment on whether I can ask others to join this discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, of course, if you think your arguments in any way prove your thinking has changed, you can involve others. It isn't what I see above. I see you saying that policy is no help when we are discussing two cases where the policy is clear enough, and where your views on nationalist POV and its handling aren't particularly relevant. Also you come here to consult and apparently think you can argue me down. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind citing a relevant policy (the one which you think is "of help")? Because so far, past or present, you only mention the word "policy" without any specifics. Perhaps if you were more clear with things like that I'd be able to understand your point more quickly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Really, you seem to have a problem with understanding why your behaviour leaves a bad impression. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WaceBioshort

Template:WaceBioshort has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup

Time for another one? It's been just over 3 months. The last Sunday of February (27th) is probably a good idea, just to space ourselves between the London meetups. --Deryck C. 16:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of the end of February, but I do have some family things also. I was trying to get something in particular set up for 15 January, for the anniversary, but it didn't work out. I want to get Alex Stinson (User:Sadads to Cambridge to pursue his Campus Ambassador programme; you should meet him. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

General thanks for various bio fixes

I keep forgetting to thank you for the many content/ref/cosmetic improvements additions to bios/stubs I've been working on. Lack of thanks doesn't mean it isn't noted and appreciated. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I only wish the DNB had broader scope. I do a little these days with Schaff-Herzog text, but I suppose it doesn't cover Unitarian history very well. In the bigger picture my conception is "Reference Commons", or the posting at Wikisource of material suitable to be adapted into Wikipedia text. But it is a fairly slow and painstaking business, and of course only covers material that is out of copyright anyway. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost interview

Update: Thanks for participating in the interview. Just a heads up that section editor Mabeenot, has move the publication date to this coming Monday, 21 February. The final draft has now been posted. Please go through it to check for any inaccuracies, etc. Thanks again. – SMasters (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Math Question

Hi Charles, a few years back I think you answered a math question for me that was very helpful. I don't mean to impose, but I'd like to ask another if you wouldn't mind. Feel free to ignore this request if you have other things you'd prefer to do. I've searched around the internet and haven't been able to find an answer. My question is this: is there such a thing as a metric with zero curvature for a simply connected space? Thanks in advance. Floorsheim (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you mean a compact manifold with curvature zero that is simply connected. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. My bad. Yes, that's what I meant. Floorsheim (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Brief article question

In the Omar Amanat edit wherein you "remove(d) reference to business school - the attached reference says nothing about this." Before I edit this I just wanted to double check with you if I am missing something else besides the reference actually mentioning the subject's business school. I did a re-read of the article (Smart Money) http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/stocks/Tradescape-Becomes-a-Contender-7502/ and in the 9th paragraph down from the top it does state "It's pretty heady company for a guy who's just five years out of college. But in true dot-com fashion, Amanat's career has been on the fast track almost from the start. After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania in 1995 with a degree in business...." Perhaps I am missing something and you are alluding to something else about the reference? thanks in advance. J araneo (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong here. "Wharton" isn't mentioned in the article, but if what is claimed is a B.S. in 1995 from Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, then that is a reasonable inference, I suppose. Are all business degrees at UPenn in Wharton? At least the date should go into the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Love's Trilogy

In your article about Richard Le Gallienne you state that in 1906 "he translated, from the Danish, Peter Nansen's Loves Trilogy". Are you certain of this? Wasn't it his wife Julia (Julie) who was the translator? Sorry to trouble you with this. Best regards, Tillander 07:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the old Britannica: [9]. Of course that could be wrong, or perhaps he worked with Julie who was Norwegian. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference to the old Britannica. But I found Julia's name on the title page in Google Books, so I used that when I recently made a page for Peter Nansen. Do you think I need to mention Richard as possibly having been involved in the translation also? Sorry to bother you again, Tillander 11:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I have looked around on Google, and it is probable that Julie is properly credited with the translation. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much; that was my conclusion also.Tillander 02:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Assistance needed at Henry Francis Lyte

Could you please back up my plea for edit summaries and discussion at Henry Francis Lyte? Thanks,John Foxe (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time for an admin to step in and at least give User: Ordurac a stern talking to; it looks like he has already made twelve (12) reversions to that article within a 24 hour period. Duke53 | Talk 16:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
07:26, February 22, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415271239 by Duke53 (talk))
19:16, February 21, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415230465 by John Foxe (talk))
19:00, February 21, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415229069 by Nem1yan (talk))
18:57, February 21, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415228740 by Nem1yan (talk))
18:55, February 21, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415227927 by Nem1yan (talk))
18:37, February 21, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415225716 by Nem1yan (talk))
18:33, February 21, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415225166 by Nem1yan (talk))
18:24, February 21, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415221180 by John Foxe (talk))
16:43, February 21, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415205785 by Ordurac (talk))
16:39, February 21, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415205038 by Duke53 (talk))
16:11, February 21, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415137307 by John Foxe (talk))
16:11, February 21, 2011 (diff | hist) Henry Francis Lyte ‎ (Undid revision 415137806 by John Foxe (talk))
Duke53 | Talk 16:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your comment on Ordurac's talk page. Bear in mind that it will probably save time in the long run to explain clearly WP's requirements. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, couldn't his latest reversions to the article be reverted by someone while negotiations with him are underway ? I am not going to be the one to revert him again; admins may show him infinite patience but I'm not sure that they wouldn't ban me for a 3RR violation at that page. Best. Duke53 | Talk 17:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
You are wise not to put yourself in a false position. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking in on this—and for your tweaks to the article as well. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DNB ODNB

I saw this edit we seem to be in a minority see Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 5#How about DNB as a source instead of ODNB? -- PBS (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard Poirier

Charles, This seems to be a genuine content dispute, backed by sources. As an interim measure, I've removed all the text that is causing dispute. It'd be helpful if you can participate at the discussion at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Bio on Richard Poirier to help resolve the problem. Your extensive knowledge about stuff should help! --Deryck C. 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help or just build a bio stub for me?

You helped me back when I was a permabanned IP. I'm legal, now. Could you please get a stub started (or teach me how) for this fellow Addison Clark Jr. (see [10]). TCO (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see very much about the son to make a biography with: [11] says he went to the University of Michigan. There is much more about the father: see [12] for example. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
What's your opinion on the notability of father? I guess he did some different things, but the biggest thing was his co-founding of TCU?
Is the Texas History Online an RS, or do I have to get those books they refer to?
For the son, I guess mostly what I know about him is the mascot story and that he started the football team and yearbook at TCU. And son of uni founder. Is he notable enough for a page? TCO (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Since the online Texas History is taken from the print New Handbook of Texas, it counts as a reliable source. Addison Clark Sr. would be notable as a college head, at least. I don't see the son as notable just for working on a yearbook. But he could be mentioned in passing in an article about the father. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom decision on MHP: OR vs exposition in mathematics

Hi Charles,

I think that your expertise would be very helpful now. The arbitration of the Monty Hall problem is nearing its decision phase.

Two proposals for the arbitration committee's decision concern Wikipedia policy on mathematical articles, especially original research versus secondary sources.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I certainly understand more about ArbCom principles than I do about the Monty Hall problem. The second principle on OR seems to be drafted somewhat too tightly: it is the kind of interpretation that some of us have been worried about for years, in the form of "verification" being needed for trivial pieces of mathematical reasoning. And COI is not supposed to be deployed as a content argument, with the proviso that the ArbCom itself is better placed to form judgements on editor behaviour than individual editors when COI is a possible factor. So I'm more worried about the OR thing. Of course these principles are not policy: they are supposed to explain ArbCom reasoning. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Charles, Thanks for your response here.
David Eppstein wrote a comment on their talk page, and some members of ArbCom (e.g., NewYorkBrad) have suggested needing time to think about the issues.
I have suggested that other members of the mathematics project not clog the ArbCom talk page, now that Geometry Guy and David Eppstein have written them. I would leave you three to help ArbCom find suitable language, if any of you believe that you may be helpful to them. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Elen twice asked for suggestions for alternative wording. I proposed an alternative on the WP project mathematics talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

A very manly man, just like you!

You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.


Keep up the great work!


A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Matthews (politician)

The article John Matthews (politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Safety Cap (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons (Igor Shafarevich)

Hi Charles:

If you can spare some minutes, could you please take a look at the noticeboard for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons? (See the entry on Igor Shafarevich). Your expertise would be very useful.

Sincerely, Nidrosia (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Charles, I know you've been involved with a few lists of people - if you have time, I have a question about the guidelines on referencing redlinks there on which I'd be interested to hear your view. Dsp13 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In relation to grids , and slew transformations

Thanks for your response.

To place my questions in context.

As part of some project work I did for my undergraduate degree (in computing) I attempted to build a software tool that would allow the 3D visualisation of some simple frame structures, namely those based on so called 'space-frame' designs in relation to 'modular building' systems. ( The actual tool I wrote only partialy met this requirement)


I noted in reading over parts of the original project report (of which I can dig out a digital copy if needed.), that there were places, like with the slew transform, where the theoretical basis was perhaps not a robustly defined or explained as it could perhaps have been.

I'm in the very slow process of trying to put parts of the project report up on Wikiversity with a review to revising it considerably, or spinning out certain sections into resources of thier own..

See: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:ShakespeareFan00/Octus_Explorer_-_An_experimental_visualisation_tool http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:ShakespeareFan00/Grid_definitions http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:ShakespeareFan00/Slew_transform

Any upper-triangular matrix can be represented in that way as a diagonal matrix multiplied into a unipotent matrix (upper triangular with 1's on the main diagonal). Charles Matthews (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As you said , I need to learn a LOT more about matrix stuff :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Wikiversity is of course like Wikipedia a Collobrative resource, and I'd welcome some input from those that understand things better than I do.

In the questions I posted, I was considering a simpler 2d case... In the actual tool, the transformation of one 'grid' into another was in 3D, and where things get complex.

It also occurred to me that cubic rectilinear grids were not the only sort that 'abstractly' existed, there being many other 'tessellations' and 'honeycombs' that could be used, (not to mention approximations to grids having a circular or spherical basis, such as those thought of as 'polar' or even spherical.

In doing some web-searching, it also seems that some space frame structures are based on really complex things like tessellations on the surface of a sphere, the 'grid' in those cases being formed by the vertecies and edges of polygons in the tessellations.

It also seems what some people think of as a 'grid' is more narrowly defined than the dictionary definition would suggest, and in some cases what is called a 'grid' isn't a gird at all but more of a 'network' (like the UK power grid for example) :(

Perhaps defining a 'grid' in math terms is more complex than I thought? :(

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You should probably learn enough basic matrix algebra to distinguish between cases it deals with, and cases it doesn't. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, It seems clear from reading the article you link that I don't understand matrix algebra :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've updated - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:ShakespeareFan00/Slew_transform . It seems a slew transformation is a shear

transformation followed by a 'scaling'. I'm still not sure how to get the scaling factor. My approach was to consider that the slewed line segment(?) forms the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle, The other two sides of this traingle are an axes,and a line perpendicular to the axis concerned which also intersects the slewed line ( although obviously not in a perpendicular manner).

If the slewed line is of unit-distance 1, then p must be the sin of the angle of slew, the remaining side being the cosine. The scaling factor required can than be obtained by considering that cos^2+sin^2=1 for any given right angled triangle.

That is probably a bad explanation of how to get the scaling factor though...

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Math Question

Hi Charles, a few years back I think you answered a math question for me that was very helpful. I don't mean to impose, but I'd like to ask another if you wouldn't mind. Feel free to ignore this request if you have other things you'd prefer to do. I've searched around the internet and haven't been able to find an answer. My question is this: is there such a thing as a metric with zero curvature for a simply connected space? Thanks in advance. Floorsheim (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you mean a compact manifold with curvature zero that is simply connected. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. My bad. Yes, that's what I meant. Floorsheim (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charles_Matthews/Archive_32&oldid=1089949523"