Jump to content

User talk:Mathsci/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

DRV notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily, which occured following the closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mathsci. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
Message added 10:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited All Wales Ethnic Minority Association, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dragon's Eye, Western Mail and National Lottery (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) 10:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Precious

Bach music
Thank you for treating Bach's instrumental music with profound knowledge, namely Clavier-Übung III and now Orgelbüchlein, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if you may want to link to the occasions of the liturgical year which may not be known to the common reader, such as Purification, compare List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function? (And perhaps use less bold for titles, more italics?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This is happening in the images and eventually will be in the text. There is a huge amount to add (musical excerpts, analysis, history, etc) and this will all happen in due course. The model for this article is closer to Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes. Please be patient and let me get on with writing the article. The titles will have English translations and that all takes time. At the moment I'm looking for images German stained glass... Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at Barber's Adagio. Please let me understand what do you mean by improperly sourced in your edit summary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ecartan.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ecartan.jpeg, 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. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Orgelbüchlein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reinecke (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) 14:35, 4 April 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.

Edmund de Unger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Coptic and Nimbus
Oscillator representation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Multinomial

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

R&I review

I note that you haven't asked for my recusal in this case. I should probably have pinged you on this before I started voting on the principles, but I can retroactively recuse at this time if needed. So--do you want to assert that my involvement in some of the matters discussed in the evidence is sufficiently entangled that you do not trust me to be fair and impartial regarding the case. Because of how sufficiently entwined the matters are, I do not believe it appropriate for me to recuse with respect to one or two of the three editors involved, so any recusal would be an all-or-nothing affair. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, on 27 February I left this message on your talk page.[1] You replied thus.[2][3][4] Ferahgo the Assassin (FtA)-Captain Occam (CO) happened to include those diffs of random comments on your election discussion page (a reply to Casliber) and on the workshop page of the abortion case when I briefly commented in defense of MastCell. It's hard to believe these diffs are being used to show anything within the context of WP:ARBR&I, but if they are, for whatever reason, then of course you were involved. On the election discussion page I made a very clear statement praising you as an administrator and you thanked me: I had made a clarification only after Casliber asked a question. FtA-CO were indiscrimante in the diffs they produced when they tabled their request for amendment and misrepresented those diffs with their commentary. Why two diffs like that are even under consideration here mystifies me. If the arbitration committee are seriously considering these as evidence of anything at all (my deep evilness perhaps :)), you probably would have to recuse. On the other hand I cannot believe they are. Because of the problems created by the diffs FtA_CO produced, my view is that you do not need to recuse, but that arbitrators should look very carefully at those diffs, as I have already said. Most of them show nothing at all. There are two referring to Echigo mole, whose ipsock left this comment on the amendment page.[5] Mathsci (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens, you wrote this after your re-election to arbcom.[6] Those comments appeared to be personal criticisms of critics, including presumably me. These, and similar comments in the abortion arbcom case, seem to still be motiva ting your edits. Having in an official capacity demanded responses to proxy-edits on behalf of a site-banned users in a request for amendment, you have then apparently labelled the responses as "battleground behaviour". Mathsci (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I asked you if you thought I could be impartial, and you replied above (in a somewhat convoluted manner) that you did not see a necessity for me to recuse. If I thought myself that I could not be impartial in this case, I would have recused without asking your opinion. It's a bit late in the game to bring up something once I've not recused, implying that me finding a degree of fault in your conduct--though not to a level sanctionable to even a topic ban level--is motivated by anything other than a detached assessment of the current situation rather than any fallout from the Abortion case. Indeed, one might presume that I would be favorably disposed to Occam/Ferahgo because they'd assisted me with evaluating evidence in the Abortion case. In fact, I call it exactly like I see it: I am not convinced there are two independent editors there, and you are often both right and excessively abrasive in the process of being right. Please take that feedback for what it is: my honest and impartial appraisal of the conduct of all involved parties. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Jonathann Clemens, that is not what you asked me. You should probably have replied here before posting comments or votes elsewhere. Normally when arbitrators are lobbied by disruptive editors, they make no reply. Please take note. Mathsci (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You asked whether you should recuse yourself. I made no definite reply. I already suggested in February that you probably should recuse, as recorded above. Then once more you yourself raised the question of recusal on 18 April. You chose not to reply here immediately, but went ahead and made statements on the PD page, without making any comments on the diffs concerning you. Now you have written that it's too "late in the day." Perhaps you might at least add a comment on one of the PD pages about those diffs, or even possibly the others, which probably should all be reread now that it has become apparent that FtA's edits are unreliable and misrepresent both herself and others. The diffs concerning you and MastCell are not personal attacks, do not concern ideological opponents (whatever that is supposed to mean) and do not display battleground conduct. FtA and CO have been described by Roger Davies as having "in particular a tendency to not hear combined with extraordinary persistence and tenacity (trying to get an iBan with Mathsci for nearly two years, for example) which are a poor fit for Wikipedia." Unfortunately those same observations apply equally well to their submissions to you during the abortion arbcom case concerning MastCell. FtA had been blocked by him, so could not be considered impartial. The evidence they produced against MastCell, which was not made public but presumably involved the diffs you placed on the workshop page, was a precursor to the type of "evidence" they produced about me during the request for amendment. Only arbitrators know what the private evidence of FtA and CO was like. Their on-wiki conduct would suggest that it was probably unreliable and and also quite likely to misrepresent all those concerned. Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Bach-Conservatoire-August-Weger.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bach-Conservatoire-August-Weger.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI I only nominated that because the reproduction of the engraving is extremely bad, not because of anything particular to the engraving itself. Yesterday I also tried to investigate this image of yours to find better info on the provenance of the image before a possible transfer to commons, but it doesn't seem that the British Museum actually holds the print (judging by a search of the British Museum's collection online--the database there seems to be comprehensive btw). I can't find anything really authoritative that dates this image or gives an author. Can you help find a reliable source describing where this image comes from? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, are you sure that first image (now on commons at File:J.S. Bach by August Weger.png) is by Weber? The source link goes to another image entirely (and searching that site doesn't bring up anything by Weger). Other sites credit a different engraving to Weger.[7][8] (Obviously, it's possible that Weger did more than one engraving.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
That is the information that I found at the time when I uploaded it. Is there any reason to doubt it? Possibly on that website there was a mistake in recording the first name of the artist. Here for example on the website of the Bibliotheque Nationale de France is the same image.[9] There it is stated that it is by Joseph Weger after a painting by Stichler, so possibly the source confused Joseph Weger with August Weger. The same image appears in several other places. So there probably was an error in the first name. Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Call for diffs: R&I Review

Please see this message asking for additional evidence in the form of diffs. Please don't reply here, it will only fragment discussion.  Roger Davies talk 15:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh good

I'm glad you're back William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be of value

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed significantly since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tombeau-Pagnol-La-Treille.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tombeau-Pagnol-La-Treille.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.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Fontaine-La-Treille.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fontaine-La-Treille.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.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review Closed

The arbitration review of the Race and Intelligence case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Mathsci (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct
  2. Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) and Captain Occam (talk · contribs) are site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.
  3. SightWatcher (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.
  4. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.


For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 02:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

FoF 2.5 in the Race and intelligence review be amended to read: Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed SPI

Fixed. Sorry about that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

He he, no problem at all :) Mathsci (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Penny Birch

What do you have on her? I noticed that that SPI did not bring you the desired result--can you make a stronger case there based on behavior? (I think that was the problem, right?) Drmies (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a problem of wikistalking and related editors finding their way to obscure articles. I think three probable socks of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole have edited Chateau of Vauvenargues: Junior Wrangler, Penny Birch (with a 2 year gap) and Silver starfish. It is an obscure article which nobody would normally find.

Penny Birch's edits to the Chateau of Vauvenargues were problematic because of the timing. They followed edits by Junior Wrangler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A.K.Nole, one of Echigo mole's first accounts, and the other participants (Groomtech and Kenilworth Terrace) in User:The Wiki House wrote several articles related to Cheltenham and the University of Gloucestershire. Penny Birch too. The first editor on C. of V. was Junior Wrangler (talk · contribs) who because of his first and third edits and low level mathematics contributions, fits the pattern of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole. He created Spirella (disambiguation) adding the Spirella Building in Letchworth (see below).

But as far as the editors are concerned, the circumstanstial evidence is strong. The similarity between the names Zarboublian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gustave de Zarbouble cannot be an accident. Nor between The Wozbongulator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Guozbongleur. The two blocked sockpuppets that interrupted the SPI diverted attention from the edits of Silver starfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The two articles that were visited by many of the editors concerned were

as the first blocked sockpuppets pointed out at the SPI report, somewhat redundantly. But, as Echigo mole, they also knew about other hoaxes such as the Letchworth Corset Riot, created by Jspearmint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which linked to the Spirella Building. The use of Baldock in Robert de Baldoque and the deleted Baldock Beer Disaster mentioned by the sockpuppet is unlikely to be a coincidence.

Silver starfish created one of the hoax articles, La Maison du Guozbongleur. It was pure nonsense but referred to rue Cardinale, the small street in Aix where I live. A confirmed sockpuppet of Echigo mole, Caderousse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article on Church of Saint-Jean-de-Malte: Echigo mole worked out my real life identity, has written it on WP and has worked out where I live. I already wrote that I play the organ in the above church. There is no reason to create an article on rue Cardinale (the small street where I live) unless it recounts the history from a more modern source than something dating from 1848. Any modern guide book would do, but the detail is WP:UNDUE and the interesting history is not there, even recent facts (No. 23 was used in the filming of Beyond the Clouds of Antonioni and Wim Wenders). To me this is all part of Echigo mole's activities as a wikistalker. It's creepy. We know Echigo mole wrote the article on the church in January 2012. Silver starfish wrote the hoax article, mentioning the street, and the article in the street very recently (25 April 2012). There's something very fishy going on, particularly since Echigo mole is now resuming the use of the vodafone IP range 212.183.1.1/16. Mathsci (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on articles about Aix-en-Provence

Please stop attacking me for my edits — you have provided no evidence that this information is original research, and despite your claims, nineteenth-century sources are not unreliable simply because of their age. If you hold such an opinion, I would suggest that you nominate articles such as Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) and Convention of 1832 at WP:FAR, because both of them are featured articles that make substantial use of nineteenth-century secondary sources. Moreover, getting rid of good-quality information doesn't help the encyclopedia, and if a rule prevents me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, I'm going to ignore it and restore the information. Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I was so far from enabling this user that I asked for a sockpuppet block by a checkuser in order to strengthen the case against this user. I am not interested in retaining banned users, so I do not enable them. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I simply restored text that you removed; I cannot check print sources. Kindly refrain from instructing me to avoid editing certain pages; only the community or Arbcom may issue topic bans. Finally, official government references for historic sites are reliable sources and not primary. I began this process with sympathy toward you, but your words are driving me more and more to doubt your good faith. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I am quite experienced in writing articles on France and French culture. In this case editors involved in creating hoax articles have created stubs and than sub-stubs of stubs which fed into the hoax articles. They were editing in bad faith; it probably is true that Silver starfish is a sockpuppet. If you have lost faith in my editing of French articles, please look here [10] and here [11]. It's quite easy for me to add content to quartier Mazarin listing the major buildings in the quartier. That would be divided up amongst roads and squares in the article. Once that it is done it would be reasonable to discuss whether individual streets or squares merit separate articles. That would seem the reasonable way to go and is what is normally found in modern books on Aix. The history of the quartier and the occupants of notable buildings are intimately linked. The problem here would seem to have been created by hoaxers not by me and I am suggesting a systematic way of adding content on Aix in an encyclopedic way. As an illustration, the Conservatoire Darius Milhaud is on a small street. It occupies one of the grandest hotels particuliers in the quartier Mazarin. It does not deserve an article on its own, nor would the small street on which it is. However, it is natural to describe it in detail in the article quartier Mazarin. It is briefly described in the article on Aix, although I'm not sure whether content has been added explaining that it has been sold to become a private museum and that a new conservatoire is currently under construction behind the Pavillon Noir and the Grand Theatre de Provence. Mathsci (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop tagging the starfish account per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Echigo_mole/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments_36. Nobody Ent 10:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No checkuser was run and no comments were made on the account because Echigo mole disrupted with two sockpuppets. My understanding is that there was also no recorded data available (i.e. records were stale) because of the delay in detecting the edits. The tagging is allowed and reflects my informed view: the hoax articles, one of which was created by Silver starfish, point ineluctably to sockpuppetry. If anybody can explain the coincidence between Gustave de Zarbouble and Zarboublian fine. If this account, or any of the other three accounts edit again, they are likely to be blocked indefinitely. Another account that made one single edit yesterday Sophie Germaine was blocked indefinitely as a result of that single edit reported by me. Another sockpuppet is also active at the moment. I have not yet tagged the account as a suspected sockpuppet, but am watching it vigilantly. One of the past problems, certainly a year ago, was keeping track of the accounts: checkusers on arbcom helped privately with that (Shell Kinney and then Elen of the Roads). So please could you mind your own business if, as it seems, you have not followed matters closely and do not know how to recognize the sockpuppets? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No need to have the last word

Hi Mathsci, while I can understand your exasperation with the Echigo situation, would you perhaps consider removing your latest posting at the AN thread, which you added after I closed the thread? I recognize you might not have noticed it was closed a few minutes earlier. It's not a big deal, but my main reason in closing the thread was that I felt neither Collect nor you had much to gain from continuing that exchange. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict, but when I pressed save, I saw your close, which I prefer :) So certainly. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Mathsci and Echigo Mole 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, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystone Crow (talk • contribs) 04:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this has been reverted out of existence: [12]. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, unsurprisingly, Keystone Crow is blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It is yet another sockpuppet of Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hey Mathsci. I recently sent you a completely not-urgent email. Feel free to respond whenever you have the time. Best, NW (Talk) 21:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, NW. Will look :-) Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

E.M.

Your patience during this process was appreciated. The extra gnashing of teeth (and the posting as IP slip up) will help me in the future to match him up, if I need to. Since the material is beyond me (I couldn't tell you a good edit from a bad one in that field, honestly) and I have to act based on my understanding, not just the word of the reporter, hopefully we can start reducing the time to act since I have a reference for behavior now. I was sure you were right, because I trusted you, but I didn't trust me until the end. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Characteristic functions and sockpuppets

Hi. Thanks for catching my change of characteristic to indicator at one point (disambiguating links to characteristic function is the kind of trivial job I can do, unlike actually writing content) - I'm not well up on the appropriate terminology in each field, and whilst I'd thought to check through the articles to see if we were using the term elsewhere I'd forgotten that the notation involved would also be worth checking. The ones later I didn't actually change, more by luck than judgement (I think the first one was very logic-y and so had no chance of being confused with another meaning). I'll just go through the remaining ones from a few days ago now and change them if we're using a chi. I noticed you hit my user page (it got created...with a suspected-sock-puppet tag. This is a denial of being in any way connected to EM (to my knowledge and belief). I haven't been using this account because signing in is too much effort if it signs me out at all, and when at university I have a reasonably static IP: User:128.232.241.211. Does that clarify anything? Straightontillmorning (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but, if you are not EM, you should at least be aware that "characteristic function" is the terminology used by mathematicians. Ask JMEH, if in doubt :) Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia's own article on characteristic functions says that probabilists say indicator to avoid confusion with the Fourier transform of the distribution - certainly the result of my four years' training is that I regard the two as interchangeable. However, if practice here (and generally) is for characteristic I will follow that - thanks for the advice. . Straightontillmorning (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I suggested that you talk to Martin Hyland if there is any doubt in your mind. The Cauchy integral formula is obviously not considered primarily to be part of probability theory. Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Beltrami equation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weyl's lemma (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) 11:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

images Orgelbüchlein

Dear Mathsci, please consider that the Orgelbüchlein has no text, and therefore that the images, while relevant to the hymns underlying the chorale preludes, bear no relevance to the Orgelbüchlein itself. I duly addressed this issue in the talk page of the article. I also raised the point of the Orgelbüchlein being a "religious statement". This is not supported by anything in the article, or, more seriously, by analyses of the Orgelbüchlein I have seen. Please respond to my motivation for removing at the talk page before restoring. Zwart (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The images are relevant to the texts of the hymns. All the sources agree that these chorale preludes are sacred organ music, so I'm not quite sure why your own opinion has any relevance. It seems to be WP:OR. I view your removal of the images as vandalism. Please read the sources instead of presenting your own personal point of view. Please leave the images until the article is finished. Mathsci (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Really, "all the sources" ? But here's something else. I checked up on the Clavier-Übung III article. Two things were noticeable. First, the same sloppy writing with claims about religious statements without proper referencing. Second, you bullied another Wikipedian, who made a perfectly legitimate suggestion as to how to improve the article, until he lost interest and moved away. So I think I understand what we're dealing with here. Please go ahead and hijack Wikipedia articles to make your own little personal web sites and tell everyone else to back off "until the article is finished". If you have time, check the Wikipedia policy on finished articles. (They don't exist.) Zwart (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Please keep these discussions to the talk page of the article, not my user talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Indulci-2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Indulci-2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Stefan2 (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your EM report

I do not know whether or not this is a one-off error of yours, but please see my comment to you at the Echigo mole SPI. AGK [•] 19:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Singular integral operators of convolution type, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Characteristic function (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) 11:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk

Hi. You might want to take a look at my talk page. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

System of bilinear equations

Interested in rescuing this article? There are a few suggested sources in the AfD, and you may be able to come up with a few other to furnish the article with. Deryck C. 17:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Singular integral operators of convolution type, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tempered distribution (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) 14:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

personal attacks and stuff

Tangentially, I was recently accused of making a personal attack by using the phrase "experienced editor" in a comment on a talk page. I said to editor X that editor Y was an "experienced editor" and editor X accused me of implying throught the act of calling editor Y experienced that he or she was inexperienced and that that was a personal attack. One must tread lightly, it seems.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

John makes a large number of edits to wikipedia, which from my point of view, as an article creator and somebody not very familiar with John's editing, do not seem to involve adding very much substantial content. Within his recent edits can be found a series of deletions of flag icons in British, German and French city articles, none of which have been adequately justified. I believe that in many cases, these deletions are his sole edits to the articles. Mathsci (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
He's certainly on a roll with those flags for some reason. Anyway, I meant my remark to be sympathetic to your being accused of making personal attacks.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a wee friendly note; you are pushing the limits at Talk:Marseille. Remember, article talk is for discussing improvements to articles. If you have concerns about an editor, it is better to raise it with them in their talk, as I am doing here now. Please do be very very careful. Thanks, --John (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
You are referring to yourself here. I wrote something about your edits, not you, but you should not have removed the whole post as you did per WP:TPG. I removed the reference to Pmanderson, since your edits are usually very good. The article Marseille appears to be being edited at the moment by a banned editor who has already been reported in private to a checkuser. (That was recently suggested as the procedure for the particular banned editor whom this seems to be.) I have already noted elsehere your edits to 28 articles on cities in Germany and France.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] As I've said before this does not seem to be a burning issue. Mathsci (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Singular integral operators on closed curves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Involution (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) 11:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathsci/Archive_27&oldid=1139535527"