Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kempner function

Kempner function

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. FlSmarandache (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Example2 (talk · contribs)
3. Example3 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Balloon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Balloon animal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Balloon#I disagree with this edit

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Untrue paragraph at “Kempner function” wikipedia page

Thank you for your hard work. I often read wiki entries with great interest, but some of them are biased. I am not perfect, but I am not the worst person of the world either as some wikipedians portrait me. Unfortunately I saw much hostility, hatred and bias-ness against me in Wikipedia. If I committed mistakes, I apologize and I ask for forgiveness. I’ll not do in the future. Maybe because of some misunderstanding from both parts, between some supporters and some wikipedians, it brought me in this horrible situation. For example I was unfortunately named in Wikipedia “criminal,” “bank robber,” “suicide bomber,” etc. –- just too much exaggerations. But I forgave them and this misunderstanding has stopped long ago and I apologize for all that happened. There is nothing positive in wiki about me, only denigrations. I am not only bad, as this entry says, I have also many positive sides ( the readers should check the below site too, since I have the right to defense: http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/FlorentinSmarandache.htm ).

At History in this entry, the paragraph about me is unfortunately malicious, biased and untrue. I proof this below.
- “In 1980, following his habit, Florentin Smarandache re-named this function after himself.”

This assertion is untrue, since up to 1980 I had published very few research math papers only, and there was no notion at that time named after me. In 1979 I had barely graduated from my university. The paper was written in 1979 and submitted to a university journal. Its title was simply “A Function in the Number Theory”, not after my name. I can attach the paper for you, exactly as it was published in 1979, so you see that nowhere in the paper it was called “Smarandache function” but only “function \eta”.
- “Several self-published and possibly pseudonymous books also used the same name…”.

This is also untrue. The books were published from several grants received by the above professors, and they are real persons (Dr. Constantin Dumitrescu and Dr. Vasile Seleacu – both from the University of Craiova, and Charles Ashbacher – American researcher), not pseudonyms. Charles Ashbacher is an author, editor, mathematician, computer programmer and sometimes adjunct instructor at Kirkwood Community College (Cedar Rapids, Iowa); see his site http://charlesashbacher.net/ . See also his contact information in Iowa: http://charlesashbacher.net/3.html and please call him to get convinced. People who brought positive things about my work were labelled sockpuppets in order to discourage or intimidate them unfortunately. Only negative things were left about me in wiki. Not even references on my published papers are allowed in wiki for subjects I did.
- In 1979, when I wrote the paper “A Function in the Number Theory” in the communist Romania, I did not have access to old western journals to check my research, since we did not have much contact with western countries, as you know. It also happened that others, such as Neuberg (1887) and Kempner (1918), rediscovered it as well, without knowing of Lucas’s (1883).
It happens in science that the same scientific result is discovered independently by different researchers. For example, L’Hospital’s Rule was discovered and proved by John Bernoulli in a letter sent to Guillaume L’Hospital.

- References 7 is incorrect, since the book authors and the book title are: C. Dumitrescu and V. Seleacu, “The Smarandache Function”, not four authors and not that title.
- Reference 8 is also inaccurate, since the book author is only Charles Ashbacher, not two authors. I suffered for more than 10 years under this untrue stigma in Wikipedia. If I committed something wrong, politically, ideologically, etc. I apologize and I humbly feel that I was punished. I am a good American citizen and I love very much America. As a researcher I worked for NATO (2005), for NASA (2005), for American Air Force Research Laboratory (Rome, New York State, 2009), etc. I am now old and sick and I plan to retire. So please let's reconcile. Please update this entry, and please let positive things about me to be added to other wiki entries (do not censor my name as a blacklisted person), and please remove those things that are untrue, or biased, or based on speculations. I do not want to fight with anybody. I appreciate your future fairness. Wikipedia is a serious site, based on documentation, not on speculations, and not biased. So, please correct the wrong paragraph about me.

1. Should the picture in the lead of Balloon be a helium balloon or a hot air balloon?

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. FlSmarandache (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject: Fails to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #4, "The parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page and discussion only through edit summaries will not suffice." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)