User talk:Charles Matthews

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 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
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

"hidden parity question" in Komidashi

Hello Charles Matthews! Way back in February 2006 you added the text "There is however a hidden parity question which means that a draw is unlikely" to Komidashi. I am now trying to disambiguate your "parity" and wanted your help. While it is possible you meant it in its common sense of "equality", I suspect that you intended parity (mathematics) as many problems posed on grids can be solved via issues of even and oddness, often of black vs white squares when given a checkerboard color. I'm not familiar with go and there is no mention of "parity" at Go (game) so I wanted to check with you first. You may also wish to verify that your statement is still in context as it has been moved slightly since your edit. -- Thinking of England (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's parity (mathematics). Charles Matthews (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Symbols chart for the GD&T article

Oleg_Alexandrov, Lothartklein, Wizard191, Gzyeah, Zz9fy4, Legobot, Mdd, Alansohn, Seddon, Charles Matthews , Mike Martin:

You are some of the people, recent and old, who have edited or provided comments for the GD&T article. Please take a look at this new version of the Symbols chart, and provide any input you deem relevant:

Talk:Geometric_dimensioning_and_tolerancing#Symbols_chart.3B_new_candidate_to_replace_the...

LP-mn (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplier (Fourier analysis)

Hi. I recently looked at the above-mentioned article and found that it states a different definition than the one that I would use (see the article's talk page for the details). This would be fine if it cited a valid reference (the definition given seems entirely reasonable), but it does not. I noticed (well actually a user who is helping me getting settled in as a new editor noticed) that you are a regular and current editor who contributed to this article when it was new. I was wondering if you had any solid references or comments on the definition that's given in the article? Is it perhaps a physicist's convention? Thanks... Tcnuk (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look again when I have more time, but the usual approach would be to mention a strict terminology first, and then say that a laxer way of using the term may also be found. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What you suggest is what I'd like to do, but unfortunately I haven't found any references to back up the "laxer" terminology. As a consequence, in between my first message and your reply above, I rewrote the article to correspond to my own viewpoint, not because I wanted to enforce it upon the community, but because it meant that I could add references to support it. The article has stood like this for a few days, but somebody has now stated disagreement with the new definition (and actually move the article back to its old title, though not rewritten any of it yet), so I've tagged the article as needing consensus. I'm sure we'd all welcome your input. Tcnuk (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yahshuah

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

lack of Notability, lack of Sources, generally reads like a concoction

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Y-H-Sh-W-H Jr. 07:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dyotheletism

The page Dyotheletism which you created as a redirect to Monothelitism was reported as a misspelling of Dyothelitism. I've deleted your page and installed the other one. If this is a mistake on my part, please either fix it or let me know about it. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a redlink at Sophronius, now dealt with. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tensor rewrite

Apparently yet another attempt at "simplifying" Wikipedia's treatment of tensors is in the works at Talk:Tensor/Rewrite. As I see you have been instrumental in the past at bringing some sense of order to the mess there, the rewrite might benefit from your input, even if just to comment on the talk page. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, jet-lag permitting (I flew from Japan to the UK yesterday) I'll try to contribute. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officers of Arms

I noticed your DNB officers of arms list includes Robert Cook, linked to a disambiguation page. Most records show him as Cooke, and I have created his article Robert Cooke (officer of arms) under that spelling. - PKM (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I was working from the Dictionary of National Biography, and now have ticked him off on the page. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! - PKM (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something to add to your plaudits

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For improving the mathematics in Diffusion MRI, and for keeping a cool head in a rather heated discussion surrounding that article. Pcap ping 23:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet bow shockwave

Hi, I noticed you were one of the editors of the Bullet bow shockwave article. I've left some talk on it's discussion page, though you might like to have some input? Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did copy edit Bullet bow shockwave, over five years ago ... Charles Matthews (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3M Health Care

Hi Charles,

I received a Google Alert notifying me that this page had been removed. I didn't know that a wiki for 3M Health Care existed.

I'm just curious why it was removed. It was flagged for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and I'm wondering what content was posted on the wiki.

Could you help me out?

I greatly appreciate it.

Asommerkamp (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was nonsense, in fact, beginning this way: "Thanks for your mail and your good contact. We Antico International Sarl, We are a genuine and reliable company in benin and we receive your contact as supplier and we looking forward to enter into contract supply with your company and we need your good office to confirm your seriouseness to supply us Pharmaceuticals formulations worth of US$ 6.8 Million Dollars for the period of 18 months supply on basis.Below is our required products. ..." Charles Matthews (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot jerkoff!

I created that page political byline for a friend of mine that owns the blog. I thought it was well done. What? Because it's not a socialist idiot Blog it does not meet Wiki's standards? Your political bias is noted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_byline&action=edit&redlink=1 entry deleted Just because YOU do not think it is notable, does not mean that it is not. Liberal Socialist tool.

23:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by K8cpa (talk • contribs)

You would perhaps be interested to know that there are guidelines for inclusion of blogs in Wikipedia. I was applying the guideline, so for future postings you will find it worthwhile to research it and to see about compliance with our requirements. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BEFORE procedures

That WP:BEFORE procedure that you were talking about on the mailing list already exist. In fact it existed explicitly in our deletion and verifiability policies for several years. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Required re Speedy Deletion

Hello Charles, You have deleted my page "Advanced Engineering and Materials Yorkshire" due to G11 Unambiguous Promotion or Advertising.

I am new to Wikipedia and would really appreciate some advice from an experienced user. Please can you recommend how I can alter my page so that it can be accepted in Wikipedia.

The subject of the page is a "network" of hi-tech companies in the Yorkshire region. The purpose of the network is purely knowledge transfer and information exchange thus, as you can see, there is no financial gain to be made from the creation of this page.

The need for the page has arisen due to repeated inquiries all along the lines of "is there some kind of group in the Yorkshire area where [small inovative companies]can exchnage information of their skills and experiences. We have looked in Wikipedia, but can't find anything".

Thus the decision to write a short page describing the AEM network and linking to a number of other related wikipedia pages and webpages.

As the need for the page has arisen from repeated public request, then I think it appropriate to include such a page in Wikipedia.

As I said, I would be very grateful if you could advise me on how to re-write the page to make it appropriate.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andham (talk • contribs) 10:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, wordings such as "The Yorkshire and Humber region is recognised globally for the expertise of its companies in high precision engineering, metals manufacturing and the design and manufacture of components for a wide range of industrial market sectors" and "AEM Yorkshire provides a focus for all of the information that businesses in this sector need to increase their competitive advantage" are always going to look promotional rather than encyclopedic. Any Wikipedia entry must be neutral with respect to its topic, written in an appropriate tone, and concentrate on factual information (rather than aspirations, when it comes to an organisation). Very important are third-party references (what others say about an organisation, rather than its self-description). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- …as, too, is copyright policy. That prose is copyrighted ("© 2009 NAMTEC") and not free content licenced. Uncle G (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your response Charles. Now I understand the writing style that is needed and which will be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Thanks for your help, Andrew.