Jump to content

User talk:Mathsci/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Your e-mail

Received, I did think that might be the case. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mathsci. You have new messages at Virago250's talk page.
Message added 02:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Mathsci. You have new messages at Mtking's talk page.
Message added 04:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mtking (edits) 04:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah.aissa (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have one question, How can I change the title of an article? I forget to put an uppercase. Thank you in advance for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah.aissa (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Mathsci. You have new messages at Noleander's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Templating my talk page

I appreciate your concern and I'm well aware of 3R rule. But in the future, could you please not template my talk page as it can be perceived as an aggressive gesture Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Handling_of_edit_warring_behaviors. We have interacted long enough that I hope you would be comfortable enough to just leave a note. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you have reverted three times in the space of less than 12 hours. If you revert a fourth time and a report is made on WP:AN3, it is a requirement that you should have been notified. The template is standard. The passage you cite concerning warnings about edit warring applies to those involved in the edit war, if you read it carefully. If you check, my two edits to the article "evolution" were on 24 and 30 August. I am not editing the article at the moment, but I have made one comment on the talk page recently. Please stop posting aggressive messages on my user talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The passage I cited includes, "Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down." In any event, I obviously failed to get through to you. Oh well. Have a nice life. danielkueh (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is good style not to template the regulars, but post personal messages. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, after 3 reverts by Danielkueh, you should have posted some kind of explicit warning yourself about edit warring instead of just using an edit summary.[1] Danielkueh, please could you stay away from my talk page if you feel you need to resort to thinly veiled saracsm ("Have a nice life"). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Article on Swami Budhpuri Ji rewritten

Hi Mathsci, the concerned article has been rewritten. Your review is awaited. Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Budhpuri_Ji/Temp and give your suggestions for possible improvements...thanks...Svechu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Context is everything

I noticed your complaint at the Arbcom enforcement page about Malleus, and I also noticed you had mentioned me there, without providing any diffs. Were you aware of this comment from MONGO from 5 September? If not it might be worth looking at it and considering amending your statement in light of this evidence that at least one (prominent and previously-sanctioned) American editor has started the ball rolling in the nationalism stakes. MONGO has never properly explained what exactly he was on about there, but it seems ridiculous to threaten Malleus with sanctions but not mention the antecedent behavior. Regarding my own behavior there, I have found the degree of resistance of the "Defenders of the Wiki" crowd to an article assessment process (that they themselves invited) quite frustrating at times, but I hope that if you feel anything I said there crossed the line, you would have the courtesy to raise it with me in the first instance rather than on an enforcement page. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed any reference to you despite this diff in your response to MF.[2] I'm sure you meant the US government there which is why I put the comment in parentheses. I think your own editing on Talk:September 11 attacks has been exemplary. I haven't looked at any comments on your talk page. But if you have evidence that there is editor bias or bullying related to the article following the request for a GAR, the best idea is probably to present that yourself, particularly if it's spread over several wikipedia pages. Mathsci (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that, I appreciate it. The diff you mention took place during a discussion about the cultural sensitivities around the topic of 9/11, started by Karanacs' proposed new structure for the article, my suggestion of redrafting the article, MONGO "we're not going to marginalize the event itself with a slurry of POV pushing background junk", Karanacs "implies to me that there is an unstated goal here of presenting a non-POV article; one that offers Proper Memorialization and shows the accepted US POV." MF agreed and so did (and do) I, that this is a problem with improving the article. It shouldn't be outrageous in the context of discussing that article to discuss the very strong emotional grip that this event still has (indeed I would argue for including it in the article, but that's another story). You are right however to make the distinction between US government and "American"; that is something I would rephrase another time. Thank you for taking the time to examine this and I hope you might feel able to help out if we are ever to move this matter forwards; the article feels like it has been stuck since about 2006, and I hope Karanacs' and Malleus's comments in their different ways will help to move us on. I wouldn't be putting time into it if I didn't feel there was some chance of ending up with an improved article on this important topic. Meantime, MONGO continues to vent on another editor's talk page. I really think that if there is to be Arbcom enforcement it should start with him. But that, too, is another story. --John (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there a US POV? From a UK perspective there are the Lockerbie bombing and the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Although disasters on quite different scales, the way the three articles are written should not be vastly different, if it's possible to be objective. I don't normally edit current affairs articles, although I did help a little on the Sheffield incest case. Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that would be my stance too. These type of events are very jarring and produce great waves of emotion around them, making it difficult sometimes to hit the right tone. Of the articles you mention, I've done quite a lot on the first one and only a little on the second. Neither is a GA or an FA but to me they get the tone about right. I think (and multiple other reviewers at the GAR agree) that the 9/11 article takes too "official" a tone and does not adequately explore things like alternative theories, antecedents and consequences. Both the UK articles you mention do this (arguably do it too much), but the 9/11 article does not do it at all. Off to look at the incest one now, I am not even familiar with that story. --John (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, it's a horrible story, but a very nice article. --John (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Having read the current GA reassessment, my personal view is that the regular editors on the article at the moment are not being reasonable about adding some mention of conspiracy theories in the article. If a serious book devotes 3 or 4 pages to describing and dismissing them, wikipedia editors should be able to craft a short paragraph summarising that content without entering into detail about individual theories. Wikilawyering against the inclusion of non-trivial content in secondary sources is against core policy. The recent flair up, which hopefully has now subsided, seems to have been a result of regular editors' unwillingness to yield this point combined with Malleus' overreaction. Matters will calm down once EyeSerene closes the GA reassessment, although it is hard to say whether it will help solve any of the outstanding problems with the article pointed out by Geometry Guy. Mathsci (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Aaronkauf

Hi Mathsci,

Per this user's talk page as well as the fact that no action was taken, I've unarchived the ANI report here. Noformation Talk 19:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your tidy up of Annie Dunne Cheers The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomaskirche

For a picture of Bach's church with the organ loft see there or Thomanerchor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your page. There were two organs in the church (the second a "swallow's nest organ"). The current organ is a modern instrument. Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the details. Seems too complicated for a picture caption. If it matters for that article I would place it in the text, and/or to the composer/church. We agree that there isn't "The organ loft"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Europe

Dear Mathsci,

I noticed that you deleted many times revisions done by me. Now, I would like to explain several things.

1. European Bison is an animal living in 2 natural reserves in Poland and Belarus: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_bonasus_distribution.svg when you undid my revision, an old version of Poland, Belarus... Russia (which is somewhere else http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/eunewneb.gif; no reason to mention it) and Eastern Europe (no reason to mention it).

2. Last but not least. European Subdivision is a very vague topic: Eastern, Western, Central Europe change meanings quite relatively. This has to deal with many reasons. At the end these divisions are vague. Between the 1945-1990 it was relatively easy, still Turkey, Greece, Cyprus and Malta were confusing but we had Western and Eastern Europe for some time. Nowadays subdivisions very that much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe (at least 5 similar definitions); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe (again, at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe (at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Europe (at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe (at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Europe (at least 2 definitions) As you see, all of them are context dependent. It doesn't help that there are also old subdivisions (which we tend to bring back to life as they reflect the continent's complexity more): http://fc00.deviantart.com/fs42/f/2009/122/f/7/Europe_Division_by_JJohnson1701.png; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Central_Europe,_814.jpg; http://historyoftheancientworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/17th-century-map-of-Europe.jpg Although this model (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grossgliederung_Europas-en.svg) is pursued much in media: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1035212.stm (see Switzerland as a part of Central Europe and compare to other countries); http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2002/aug/26/naturaldisasters.climatechange; and European Institutions: http://www.ceinet.org/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Initiative and Un institutions: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/map/index.php Nowadays there are Unitarian tendencies in Europe: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2000.00409.x/abstract As a European I can tell you that geographical adjective has a derogatory meaning, like Eastern Europe, hence it tends to be not used, especially after the Fall of Communism in the continent.

In addition to all that we have the Western Civilisation concept: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png As well as religions (yet influential to some extent): http://westciv2.umwblogs.org/files/2010/01/Europe_religion_map_en6-1024x833.png

Now I hope you will not delete my revisions. I hope I explained well my position :)

As you can see, the Fall of Communism brought not only new opportunities butt also re-discovery to Europeans after 45 years of separation. Of course I understand that outside Europe you use old sub-divisions, even these Cold war ones.

Kind regards, --Rejedef (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I count on your help, too. Europe changed since 1990. It changed a lot. --Rejedef (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rejedef, if you want to proceed with what seems like a number of changes, post each specific change on the Europe talkpage, with the short explanation. That will clarify it, and allow opposition or support to be much clearer than seeing a huge number of changes at once. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
@ Rejedef: Please do not use my talk page instead of the article talk page: that is not helpful to other users. The reasoning provided so far for changes has not been persuasive. Since I have been on wikibreak, I have not had time to check wikipedia, except very intermittently. I had independently come to the same conclusion as Chipmunkdavis. Please propose any desired changes one by one on the talk page (not all together!), providing secondary sources in English which use the phraseology you are proposing. Everything you propose must be backed by a reliable source and not general arguments. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466

He is a supporter of the image filer. Check out the fr.wiki poll talk page: fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Sondage/Installation d'un Filtre d'image. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, Sue Gardner's report explicitly mentioned Muhammad's images: m:Image filter referendum/Sue's report to the board/en. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this blog entry is pretty amusing, especially in the comments, where someone proposes an Islamic filter to auto-add PBUH after each mention of Muhammad, to decrease offense even further. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that Jayen466 is a translator living in Cambridge. How does that tie in with what you have posted here? Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
You seemed rather confused about his motivation for involving himself in the Muhammad issue [3]. The last sentence I posted (on PBUH) is indeed unrelated, I just though you'd find it mildly amusing. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it quite like that. My perception is that Jayen466 has spent a lot of time nibbling at the edges of wikipedia policy. Mathsci (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

gimmetoo

gimmetoo - who closed that ANI mess - is an alternate account of User:Gimmetrow, who is a sysop. Just so you know. --Ludwigs2 23:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

You not only reopen a discussion by removing the close tags, but by pulling it from the archive, meaning it had sat on ANI long enough to be archived. And you didn't bother to inform me? And you want the thread re-reviewed? Are you sure you want that? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
As my posting on ANI states, the problem arose from your use of a not very well labelled alternative account instead of your principal account. I usually check administrator status by double clicking on contributions and user rights if it is not marked on the user page (as a category or otherwise). In your case, at the time I posted I had not noticed the link to Gimmetrow (I apologize for that oversight). Having unarchived the thread and having subsequently pointed out my error there)with a reference to Ludwigs2's post (intially unsigned), I saw no harm in leaving the thread unarchived. (I doubt I would have done anything at all if Ludwigs2 had not resumed his activities, lobbying ArbCom for a second time.) The confusion arose from your use of two accounts, which I still find confusing: you usually use the main account when acting as an administrator.[4] The thread will be archived automatically in 24 hours; usually ANI threads of this type are placed on a specially created subpage (Slrubenstein, Pmanderson, etc). Mathsci (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I have reasons for the alt account, but that's not the business here. You should have informed me at some point when you pulled that thread from archives. Why didn't you? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Why are you being so heavy? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Gimmetrow (do you mind if I call you that?), so far you have not posted any kind of clarification on your main account page about your alternative accounts. What you have posted so far on this page seems needlessly aggressive. If you feel that you have some kind of justified grievance, could I please suggest that you take that up directly with the arbitration committee, perhaps by requesting a new case? Otherwise could you please stop posting what in my view seem like bullying messages on my talk page? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
G2 seems to be really grumpy at the moment [5]. Weirdly, he doesn't seem to edit as Gt any more. Even more weirdly, he blocks people as Gt and then puts block messages on as G2, e.g. User_talk:Max_curse William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

BW's possible socks

Hello again Mathsci. I saw that you opened a new SPI on an IP that appeared to be editing like BelloWello. Out of curiousity, why didn't you include Wercvbnmghkjb (talk · contribs) or Eraoihp (talk · contribs)? There's certainly some similar editing patterns and I know you have suspicions about these accounts.--Kubigula (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In the report I said I was not sure that the two IPs were BelloWello, since there are several SDA universities/colleges in California. I am pretty sure of one of the other two named accounts because of evidence from the image files (the exact model of camera). One of the problems has been the relocation to California, which for a period could complicate SPI reports. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Shahnameh

The Shahnameh image could go into Commons, couldn't it? --JN466 09:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Grunsky matrix

At Grunsky matrix, I changed contraction operatora (with a final "a") to contraction operators (with an "s"). I also changed Lebedev-Milin inequality (with a hyphen) to Lebedev–Milin inequality (with an en-dash) and z1 (with the "1" italicized) to z1 (with a non-italicized 1). The first change corrected a typo and the others are required by WP:MOS and WP:MOSMATH respectively. (Note that zN with the N in italics is correct. Italics are used for variables, but not for digits or punctuation, etc. That is consistent with TeX style and prescribed by WP:MOSMATH.) Apparently in the course of trying to add the "underconstruction" template, you undid those three changes. I've restored them.

Also, how strongly do you feel about having the "stub" tag on the article in its present form? I deleted it. I think that tag is used too much. You put it back. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is unfortunately still a stub, even if I added a long list of intended topics in the lede, There is practically no content at the moment. I intend to add quite a lot quite soon, so please just hold back for the moment. The article will be hard to write largely because, as I have said, the whole subject of geometric function theory is not in a great state on wikipedia. That's the main reason most of the side articles have been written. The MoS stuff can come at the end and I have no objection at all to those changes (you are master of the en-dash; I already moved one article title in anticipation of you). I placed a notice on the article so that I can edit it calmly. I will have to write an article on the Hilbert transform on C and on the circle, as well as the Cauuchy transform on closed curves at the same time. So please, patience. Mathsci (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

86.** IP's complaint

(adapted from ANI) The post on FTN is on a different subject (asking for help with sourcing); it has nothing to do with te ANI report. I don't know what on earth you're getting at with the homeopathy thing. If you want to accuse me of something, do it, don't make these vague insinuations that innocent behaviour is somehow evil. You're being very rude, at the least, and downright harassing at worst. 86.** IP (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I made no accusations but I note your overly dramatic response here. Now please stay away from my talk page, 86.** IP. Mathsci (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Procedural loophole

Hi, Mathsci. About what you mentioned re DMSBel on ANI. I was looking at the proposed decision on RFAR Abortion the other day, and I couldn't understand how DMSBel didn't get a one-year site ban, in view of the voting. The first-choice/second-choice stuff doesn't seem to work the way I thought it did. I suppose the way he got the topic ban instead is discussed or explained somewhere, is it? Mind you, even after some arb or clerk tries to explain their arcane ways of counting, especially the power of the "abstain" vote, I generally don't understand it. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

Hello. Yes it is odd. But the whole of that case was odd. Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to know also how close it was to a site ban, because I have edited without any issues in other areas and have created a couple of articles and I don't see how what I have said or done brings me anywhere near a site-ban. DMSBel (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you please not post anything further about this topic on my talk page? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Quasicircle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyperbolic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Wee Curry Monster talkis wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Comments redacted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Workshop

While the information you posted today skirted the letter of WP:OUTING, you alleged non-Wiki information about an editor who is not currently a party to a case. As such, it is also inadmissible per Wikipedia:ARBPOL#Admissibility of evidence. Your comments have been redacted, and this message will serve as an admonishment that future attempts to introduce off-Wiki evidence about other editors into Wikipedia will result in sanctions, up to indefinite blocking. WP:COI, a behavioral guideline, is never sufficient to violate the privacy of other Wikipedia editors. Private information relevant to a case may only be submitted with the committee's prior approval. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Information has been communicated about Keithbob to two trusted arbitrators some while back in private. I am not aware of adding any information that identifies him on wikipedia. I am surprised that you did not ask another arbitrator to act in your place here, since from your post-election comments you seem to bear some personal grudge against me. Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Mathsci/ArbCom2011

Ludwigs asked me to take a look at this subpage of yours. Am I correct in stating that it is a page you intend to formally submit onto the Evidence subpage soon? NW (Talk) 03:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have replied by email. (The page is linked to the workshop page with this diff.[6]) Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I suppose that's fine for now. I would encourage you to move the subpage or a summary thereof to the Evidence shortly though; user subpages are normally not meant to be used if the Evidence page can suffice. NW (Talk) 07:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have created an evidence section and temporarily added a link to the subpage. Unfortunately the number of problematic diffs is quite large and I might possibly look at other pages, before transferring everything to the evidence page. Also I'm quite involved in adding mathematical content to the encyclopedia at the moment; that is quite time consuming. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Koenigs function (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hurwitz's theorem
Oscillator semigroup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Roger Howe

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Eraserhead1's talk page.

Europe/Asia

Please note that taking sides on the Europe page on which country is "mostly" where can lead to destabilizing the respective country pages where the accepted consensus, and apparently the only stable one, is to maintain ambiguity. Unless, of course, you have nothing against contradictory articles, which I am strongly against.--Andriabenia (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are making unsourced edits and in the past, when editors have done this persistently, they have been subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions or sometimes have been blocked indefinitely. Mathsci (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment change

Sorry about that. I have no idea how my iPhone managed to do that :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Race_and_intelligence -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop removing others' comments from my talk page. If it's a sock posting then I or someone else will deal with it. You've been asked enough times to not edit my talk page, please respect that. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfrotunjetaky not. These are abusive edits by a banned editor and can be removed on sight. That is why AGK semirpitected Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Echigo mole (anonymous accounts)

Mathsci, I suggest you adopt the tactic of completely ignoring the anonymous accounts that you listed at the Echigo mole investigation page. Frankly, there are more important things to do on here - plenty of articles to write! - and documenting every action of the anonymous editor in question is probably not going to help you or the project. I've dealt with more abusive sockers than I care to think about, and in my experience keeping your distance as much as possible is largely the best approach. Regards, AGK [•] 10:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

AGK, please read the archives of the SPI reports a little more carefully than you appear to have done. Why exactly do you think Grunsky matrix, part of the group of mathematics articles I'm creating, is semiprotected? Please also read the email I sent you. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Oscillator semigroup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Signature (mathematics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Hi. You have good reason to be annoyed at that thoughtless comment. It wasn't a comment on your editing. I don't believe you and I have edited science or pseudoscience articles together - I certainly have no valid reason for assuming what stance you'll take on those topics. I have encountered two other editors, though, whose stance I viewed as more one-eyed and unbalanced than the anti-evidence editors they were pushing against, though no one as toxic as ScienceApologist.

The fact is, however, now, whenever I encounter such a name (or a name with "truth" in it, usually pushing the other way), I shudder. But, again, I have no reason to assume you are anything but balanced and rational on those topics. I hope you'll accept my sincere apology for my thoughtlessness. --Anthonyhcole (talk)

Hi, I removed the comment as you saw. I think this is the first arbcom case you have been in and it can be stressful if you let yourself become too involved. I think what you wrote in the heat of the moment was just a result of that stress. That's why I removed my message. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Gustav Leonhardt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

New suspect spotted

Thanks, but it's really only disruption on Europe that I watch. Elockid is the expert on the socks. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Charmingly Caledonian

I'm not sure if your comment on the PD talk page was intended to be sardonic, but I thought you should know that I enjoyed it :). Nevertheless, in this case, my colleague is correct that we can attribute my wording to Kirill's essay on Professionalism, which has been a staple of the committee's decisions for many years, and not to my own regional idiosyncrasies. Regards, AGK [•] 00:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. I didn't get the impression NYB was replying to me, despite the placing of his comment. I was not talking about the word "professionalism" but reacting in a tongue-in-cheek way to previous statements about "Britishers". That is why the statement had two layers of wrapping,was labelled "off-topic" and had that particular edit summary. I have also heard both NYB and you on wikivoices. Your voice reminded me a little of David Eric Lothian Johnston. I should also add that I have family North of the border. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:William-Thomas-Best.jpg

Hi,

first of all, thank you, this is a great picture! Are you dangoat on commons? If so, do you know by any chance who the photographer was? Unfortunately, as I understand Wikimedia's stand on copyright correctly, the photographer holds the copyright to the picture and not the person who scanned it. That is what allows us to use most paintings reproductions. I think therefore that Commons is probably right to assert it falls into the public domain. However, if you performed work on the picture, you can probably be credited alongside the author. -- Luk talk 19:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, but is is this acceptable? -- Luk talk 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

St Cuthbert's Cave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Belford and Lowick
Oscillator semigroup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Derivation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Heads up

Hi Mathsci - thanks for the heads up on this 'outing' situation - it has now resolved itself, but I agree that Memills takes great liberties sometimes. My greater concern is that Memills has been acting like the owner of the EP article for the past 5 years or more, and dismissing any research that does not fit a narrow and reductionist form of interpreting evolutionary biology. We need to be vigilant. Cheers DMSchneider (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

License information needed for File:BWV602-organ.mid

Hello, Mathsci!

It was really helpful of you to upload File:BWV602-organ.mid. However, in order to keep and use new images, they need to have a license.

If you can edit the description page and add the appropriate license, that would be great. If you're not sure how or need help, please ask at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Contraction (operator theory) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Minimal polynomial
St Cuthbert's Well (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Conduit

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
  2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
  3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
  4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
  5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
  6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
  7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
  8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

Commons

Thank you for uploading free images/media such as File:BWV616-organ.mid to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view your previous uploads). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! --Stefan2 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I created these files myself and have not finished yet. Please do not template regulars. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Source information needed for File:Keirr-Collection-altar-plaque.jpg

Hello, Mathsci!

It was really helpful of you to upload File:Keirr-Collection-altar-plaque.jpg. However, in order to keep and use new images, we need to know their original source.

If you can edit the description page and add this information, that would be great. If you're not sure how or need help, please ask at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Jweiss edit warring

I know we've had our disagreements in the past but I've always thought you fair. So I was surprised when you mentioned my wikiproject affiliation at 3RRNB. Said affiliation has nothing to do with the report and you should not have used it in an attempt to discredit my report. – Lionel (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, in this case there seems to be far too much POV-pushing on what is after all just a disambiguation stub. Having thought about it a little, the neutral place to disambiguate New Atheism would be surely be a dab for Atheism, rather than a derogatory term for a group of atheists. As far as WikiProject Conservatism is concerned, multiple users have criticized it for being potentially driven by ideology and a little too proactive, particularly in the labelling of articles. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW

Hi. I've just been browsing the AN thread about the incidents on Meta. FWIW Nemo Bis is primarily active as an admin on Italian Wikipedia. Nemo received a series of blocks [7] in December 2011 (i.e. two months ago), culminating in a 15-day block for "uncollaborative editing" and violating WP:POINT. Long discussion here [8]. Seems the source of the problem was the use of a rogue bot. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(Re undeletion) OK, no probs. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Whenever someone picks up a stone, there's always all sorts of interesting stuff underneath. Mathsci (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I tell a lie. He's never been an admin on Wikipedia.it [9]. He had his autopatroller rights removed there in December [10]. I'm only curious because his block of FPAS on Meta was so outrageous. --Folantin (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Mathsci (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Fatimid art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solomon's seal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mihrab--Mashad-al-Sayyida-Ruqayya.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mihrab--Mashad-al-Sayyida-Ruqayya.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dial a tagteam

I like that term a lot. It very nicely encompasses everything I dislike about ideologically-based wikiprojects. Raul654 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of my actions

I strongly object to this characterization of my edits on Militant Atheism. The edits were good faith attempts to accommodate the objections:

  • 1st edit clarifying relationship - substantial change to accommodate objections
  • 2nd edit further refining language as discussed on talk page. (I reverted this edit 1 time after being summarily reverted without comment on the talk page.)

I expect an apology, especially considering that you ignored the straight up reverts of others during those edits. And secondly since I voluntarily refrained from further edits for 2 days prior to your false claim. --Trödel 20:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As an admin, surely you must know that WP:3rr is only one part of WP:edit warring. You certainly did not violate WP:3rr, but by the same token you certainly did participate in an edit war. From the policy page: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. After four reverts on the page, it's clear that there was an edit war going on. Jumping in to throw in a handful of your own reverts before going to getting consensus on the talk page only makes the situation worse not better. aprock (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Why would you continue to exaggerate or uncharacterize my actions? My entry on the talk page occurred prior (21:56) and provided an explanation for my 2nd edit (22:01). Frankly this page was put on my watch list for precisely the reason listed in my talk discussion. Someone used the term Militant Atheism and I looked for it, the page was going through heated revisions, so I watched so I could see the different viewpoints, including the decision to make it a redirect page (reasonable in my view). Then months later someone comes to make a change that appears to be POV pushing and contrary to the established consensus. I think I can help by finding middle ground (though not totally informed on the content). See that my efforts are not being helpful and a consensus is building the other way - decide I don't care that much and leave only to find myself wrongfully accused. Unfortunately for the POV you seem to be pushing - should I have had the same situation happen that first brought me to the page - I would not find wikipedia to be much help and would rely on the representations of those that coined the term as that is all I would find through a cursory Google search.
This aggressive accusatory tone, plus the failure to assume that I made the edits (3 BTW) in good faith is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has a problem retaining administrators and good editors not interested in a rhetorical fight. But unfortunately, I suspect that you find the occasional editors you drive off as victories. --Trödel 16:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you responding to me or someone else? Regardless, I think I was pretty clear in what I said, so there's not much to add. There's no reason to pollute Mathsci's talk page with a roundy-round. Note: I've tweaked the above statement to be clearer and less factually ambiguous. Cheers. aprock (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From my uninvolved point of view, Trödel, your edits were non-neutral POV-pushing out of the blue on–of all things–an insignificant disambiguation page and you appeared to be edit-warring to add these non-neutral comments. Consensus has in the meantime changed (in fact quite a while back). Editors found a neutral resolution along quite different lines. In the circumstances there seems to be no reason for any apologies concerning the characterisation of your edits, which are your own responsibility. Please do not post again on my talk page on this matter again. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Echigo mole

The last comment at the recent SPI may be of interest to you. In short, Amalthea appears to have come to the conclusion that a LTA might be useful to you. Just letting you know. (I'm not at the stage in my training that I could even begin to try and set one up, but if you still want to pursue it, I'll try and help if I can). Sven Manguard Wha? 08:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied by email. Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Input requested

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_Conservatism. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:FYI

Dear User:Mathsci, thanks for the notification. I was away for a few days and probably will be for some time. I hope you have a pleasant evening. Best wishes, AnupamTalk 02:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WQA discussions

Hi Mathsci,

You've been involved in those WQA discussions. Am I missing something here? Do I have it all totally wrong? Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathsci/Archive_26&oldid=1143539449"