User talk:Salix alba

Convention: I will generally reply to questions here. If you want a reply on your talk page please specify.

Please comment at this RfC

RfC on the 'Veganism' article

"⨾" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ⨾. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3#⨾ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathsci

I'm sorry to cause any headache. But I'm trying to understand why you closed the ANI thread on Mathsci with "Mathsci has apologised for personal comments and reaffirmed a commitment to good behaviour". As you know, that only addresses part of others' (such as D.Lazard (talk · contribs)) problems, and none of mine. I think it must be exceptionally clear that I've engaged in good faith with him and made positive edits to the page itself. I feel that I've wasted many days on the talk page trying to talk to him, and as I'm sure you can see, he was mostly completely evasive on the actual points and misunderstanding the material. I don't see how you could expect an editor to the page to put up with it, and I don't see how it's a matter of personal comments or something that can be solved by affirming to behave well. Gumshoe2 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The main reason for closing was that I could not really see anything productive coming from leaving it open further. WP:ANI is really a forum for actions that require administrator action, such as blocking users, or possibly getting the user to agree to some statement. There are other measures with discretionary sanctions. No other administrator had contributed to the discussion and it looked unlikely that any other resolution was possible other than a procedural close for being a stale discussion.

Normally administrative actions follow some clear breach of policies, such as edit warring, or conduct issues. In comparison with many of the disputes I've seen, Differential geometry of surfaces is relatively mild, there has not been a hot edit war and reverts have fallen short of WP:3RR. Discussion on talk pages have been a little fractious, but again below the level at which administrative actions would normally be involved.

I could not see how your concerns could be translated into anything actionable. It might be possible to draft some form of wording, but

whether Mathsci would agree to it would be another matter.

Wikipedia is by no means a perfect system. The tools are somewhat limited and there are some problems like editors having far more time to devote than others, have no easy situation.

As to how to proceed, I would say there is a consensus for cutting down some of the articles. A clear description of a proposed change done through Wikipedia:Requests for comment, might work. There are a number of editors who might participate in that. --Salix alba (talk): 11:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, Salix alba. I was hoping not to see my username on your talk page, but ... Gumshoe2 seems to be unhappy at the outcome of the WP:ANI as you can see. However, Gumshoe2 has started making comments about my edits to the article symmetry of second derivatives, completed at the end of July. Out of the blue Gumshoe2 has suggested that he wants to revert all of my edits. He has also suggested that my edits might have involved plagiarism.[1] The article on mixed derivatives is part of something Taku is currently working on (Draft:Calculus on Euclidean space); it was an out-growth of content I created.

In my edits to symmetry of second derivatives I have changed the lay out and made clear that there were essentially 3 proofs; one of them is a classic proof by Camille Jordan from 1883. After reformatting the first proof, I gave two further proofs, one by Hörmander, another by Dieudonné. The second relies on the generalised mean value theorem. The third uses Fubini's theorem, which Dieudonné reproved using his 1939 technique of continuous partitions of unity. The history section of the article summarises an article by Higgins, written in 1940. It catalogues the numerous incorrect proofs, giving the counterexample of Lindelöf and then the correct proof of Herman Schwarz. D.Lazard writes [sic], if Mathsci start discussing in his usual way, this will allow to not answer to his out-of-subject comments. If he tries to restore the reverted version without a consensus on the talk page, and starts edit warring, then you can hope the help from other watchers of the talk page. I have put this page on my watch list. So, in case of an edit war, WP:3RR will be easier to invoke. [2] The two diffs indicate a failure to assume good faith. Gumshoe2 has made only 803 edits on wikipedia so far, so has not had very much experience as an editor. Mathsci (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Salix alba, it seems like there is a totally unambiguous case for disruptive editing on the talk page. Again, I am referring to my own interactions with mathsci, and am not referring to personal remarks or a prickly attitude, which I don't personally mind at all. It is at the point where I'm planning to avoid making any further edits on the page, as discussions with him have been a necessary, complete, and significant waste of time. There are still a large number of edits which should be made, and I can't see how they could be summarized in a single proposed change. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Gumshoe2 is unfortunately continuing with his campaign. Here he has written about the History section of the article: It seems that his additions to the section transplant the entire source material in this way. I believe this would be quite bad in a student essay; as far as I can see, Wikipedia:Plagiarism doesn't explain standards for this kind of extensive copy-paste-modify. [3] The History section is a standard exercise in summarising and paraphrasing. A short article that was easy to summarise. I have quite a lot of experience of that. I have done it for French sources, e.g. with Auguste Pavie and Chateau of Vauvenargues. And several British sources like Keir Collection. I wote biographies of Robert Hall, Baron Roberthall, William G. Whittaker and Charles Sanford Terry (historian). The early sections of History of the race and intelligence controversy were largely written by me (using careful sourcing). There is carefully sourced history sections in Clavier-Übung where Gumshoe2 is cmpletely out of his depth. Gumshoe2 has made a series of number of serious accusations. Almost everything he has written seems completely inaccurate. Perhaps this is due to his inexperience as an editor. In these circumstances, however, I would prefer to discuss this in private with an arbitrator whom I know. Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

D.Lazard has now started removing all my edits. D.Lazard has complained that there is a WP:COPYVIO. Howebver, this is a standrad paraphrase and summary.[4] Gumshoe2 has agreed with D.Lazard.[5] I would appear that D.Lazard is conducting himself in a WP:BATTLEGROUND mannner and that Gumshoe2 is acting as a tag team. Their strategy of gaiming WP:3RR has already been discussed on User talk:D.Lazard. Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

As I've always said, I'd be delighted to have more commentators and observers. Please take it up with an administrator or other official channel. I'll make whatever comment or input they require. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Salix alba, maybe I should have phrased this as an abstract question. Suppose there is a user who, for what looks like at least the past month, has been making inappropriate edits to pages, often reverts the edits of others who attempt to clarify the material by just saying things like "this edit was not helpful" or "too many changes", sends talk pages into walls of irrelevant directions, and displays a lack of understanding of much of the material he is editing, all while insisting upon his own preferred (sometimes flatly incorrect) point of view. Is there anything that could be done about such a user? I am genuinely asking, not as any kind of vendetta, but because I want to be able to determine whether it is worth my time to continue contributing to wikipedia.

On the level of the literal case at hand, I find it stunning, for instance, that nobody other than D.Lazard has even been willing to corroborate my description of Mathsci's behavior on the Surfaces talk page, beyond essentially saying that he ought to have a better attitude - leaving it to look to everyone else like there's just some high-level technical argument which they are unable to comment on. It seems to me that this is the very least that I could expect out of an administrator, especially one who has some mathematical training. Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made over 54,000 edits to wikipedia in articles covering a widea area. My recent edit have been to Riemannian connection in a surface, fundamental theorem of Riemmanian geometry, affine connection and symmetry of second derivatives. That covered some elementary topics: a Fubini-type theorem on Riemannian integration of continuous functions on a rectangle in 2D. (In the past I've given graduate lectures that have included material on abelian von Neumann algebras [≡ Lebesgue theory] and undergraduate lectures on Lebesgue theory using Tonelli's technique of quasi-continuous functions [bounded functions on an closed interval which are continuous off an open set of arbitratily small length].)

The continued grumblings of Gumshoe2 are reminiscent of comments Softlavender made in 2918 in other cicumstances, which involved discussions of "vendetta" and "hounding". (They took place on Newyorbrad's User talk page.) Gumshoe2's at the moment to the article and the talk page of symmetry of second derivaties have no positive aspects at all. Nothing he's writing at the moment seems to be aboutm improving wikipedia, quite the reverse.

Gumsshoe2 in act of vandalism has decided on his own without consensus to revert a hige of number if edit I made at the end of July 2020. Probably I will has discuss his edits with User:Newyorkbrad. Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Basically you two knock it off. This is going the way of Dispute resolution, Mathsci (talk · contribs) has been through this before and knows its not a joyous process. Gumshoe2 (talk · contribs) is new to the project and might not realise that both participants in a dispute generally come off badly from the process. I would advise Gumshoe2 to view other cases at WP:ANI and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases.

There are two aspects to the dispute. Content and User Conduct. On content this now seems to range across a number of articles, there are questions here about how consensue can be reached over the general shape of articles and the quantity of technical material. If it was a simple content dispute then WP:RFC or WP:DNR might be appropriate. However the wide ranging nature of the dispute means this might not work. I'm not sure of the approprate process to resolve the content dispute. A clear description of the dispute would be the first step.

On user conduct there is plenty of mud to be thrown in both directions. Wikipedia:Ownership of content and WP:CONSENSUS loom large here. Mathsci has a tendancy to go on the offensive when chalenged, rather than actively seeking consensus. Appeals to his large edit count do not impress here, no user have a greater control over articles than any other.

The fact that Gumshoe2 seems to be following Mathsci about and has been lobying other to get involved, looks a bit like WP:FOLLOWING.

If things do go to WP:Dispute resolution then we might be looking at interaction bans, and possibly bans from certain topics.

Suggestions:

1. Read Wikipedia:No angry mastodons about the fight or flight instince and wikipedia.
2. Never post in anger, (I'm guilty of this myself and generally regret it)
3. Take a day or so off. Wikipedia won't fall apart if the text of an article is not properly cited for a day.
4. Do something different. There are plenty of other maths articles to work on
5. Try to focus on the content and not the person. Everything we do on wikipedia should focus on how to make wikipedia better, disputes tend to drain energy away from that goal.
6. Seek consensus.

If you try all those and things don't work we can move to formal dispute resolution.--Salix alba (talk): 12:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not been following Mathsci. I came to the Surfaces page because of Lazard’s post on WP:math, made some talk page comments but no article edits because of another Wp:Math link (in response to a post of mine), with that article leading to the Symmetry page, which I only edited because I found it to be particularly egregious. My “following” thus consists of two wiki pages. My comments on Lazard’s talk page speak for themselves; it is also clear that I did not lobby Lazard to involve himself. I think it is absolutely clear that I have tried to focus on content. I have done whatever I can to welcome the input of neutral observers- I have not asked any specific users for comment. I would strongly request formal dispute resolution. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited UK Research and Innovation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Trade and Industry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Handpan pictures

I THINK YOU ARE RACIST AND HATE BLACK PEOPLE AND ARE TARGETING ME BECAUSE I AM BLACK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muranda wa She (talk • contribs)

I've also been on black lives matter protests. The only reason that I targeted the photos was that they are not suitable for an encylopedia, using special effects, like the sort of edge extraction you used, make it harder to see the actual details of the images. For encylopaedic purposed images like this one

is much better than the blury version. It could be further improved by better framing, the trees in the background add nothing to the image and make the important detail of the drum harder to see. As it does not have the special effects its suitable for use on commons, and I don't propose to delete it.

There are however problems of using the image of self-promotion WP:SELFPROMOTE. Images appearing in articles should be the best ones to illustate that topic. There are much better pictures of handpans availible, mainly because they have better framing, showing the drum in detail. Mentioning your own name in the captions and image titles is likely to lead to chalanges of self promotion.

If you are really keen to have a photo of you playing one of these drums work on getting one very good photo. You might also consider producing an audio clip. There is definitely encylopaedic value in hearing what one of these instruments sound like. --Salix alba (talk): 18:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT IMAGE, AT FIRST YOU ACCUSED ME OF POSTING BLURY IMAGES WITH A FILTER, NOW YOU CHANGE YOUR TONE AND TALK ABOUT TREES, ANYONE CAN SEE THAT THERE IS A MUSICIAN PLAYING HANDPAN IN THE IMAGE, THE FOCUS IS ON THE HANDPAN. PLEASE STOP HATING ME BECAUSE I AM A BLACK ARTIST, WHY ARE YOU SPECIFICALLY HAUNTING ALL MY IMAGES? YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY TARGETING ME...HAUNTING ME...I HAVE REPORTED YOU AND YOU MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE PLATFORM..