User talk:Charles Matthews

• /About me */Plaudits
• /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive 4, /Archive5
• /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10
• /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive13, /Archive14, /Archive15
• /Archive16, /Archive17, /Archive18, /Archive19, /Archive20
• /Archive21, /Archive22, /Archive23, /Archive24, /Archive25

"Pretentious faggot"

Describing other users as "pretentious faggot"s is inappropriate re: the standards of Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

While I would tend to agree, with this as a notional example of incivility, I don't know what you are referring to. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"your" article

I am expanding Edward Oldcorne so it can be a "did you know" on the main page in the next 4-5 days. Want to help? Victuallers (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I might tidy it up a little (I'm not going to have a huge amount of time). It is hardish to write a neutral article based on hagiographic sources, naturally. I doubt I have further sources to hand, but I'll have a look. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that Oswald Tesimond? Charles Matthews (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

July Arb stuff

First, would like to ask if you could please vote in the motions at RfAr?  Done

Another thing I'd like to remind you of is the 2 arb-clarifications - waiting on voting on discretionary sanctions remedy. 5-6 votes have been cast for the remedy as was decided in the homeopathy case. If you could vote on that sometime soon, that would be great as well. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 10:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

6 arbs have voted on the Giovanni33 case and all pass except R2 - perhaps it is ready to be closed? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)  Done

Heh - just saw your comment regarding recusal request. If you just happened to vote support at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Proposed_motions_and_voting_2, I could archive both sections. </unsubtle nudge> :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

oh yes

It is Oswald ... I had typed if from memory ... it id THE Tesimond. I hope to write a hook under joint authorship today. If you have an idea then do beat me to it. I hope to find another article to add to the hook ....Victuallers (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going offline in about half an hour - leave it to you. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Edward Oldcorne and Nicholas Owen

Edward Oldcorne and Nicholas Owen

• ... that an eye of Edward Oldcorne, who was tortured (pictured) to reveal his part in the Gunpowder plot is kept as a holy relic? expansion of new article by User:Charles Matthews and Victuallers (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edward Oldcorne DYK

On 9 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Oldcorne, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

QQ on arbitration

Hi Charles. Sorry but you are the one I voted for so... I see more TDS complaints about Connolley appearing here. Do we all have to repeat (everytime arbcom hears a complaint) that he only stirs up contraversy because he is prepared to step in against troublesome editors when the rest of us don't have the appetite or do you know this? The same complaints get recycled every time. He is not quite Dirty Harry but very much someone we need badly need tooled up on our side... --BozMo talk 16:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know William reasonably well IRL, and I know where he's coming from. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Historical Christian hairstyles

I have nominated Historical Christian hairstyles, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical Christian hairstyles. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — MusicMaker5376 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You made some general assertion on the uselessness of the piece. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

I don't doubt that you've seen it, but I'd like to formally point you towards [1] motion on the C68-FM-SV case. The continuing delay, resulting from refusal to arbitrate, of this case is getting beyond a joke and I personally find it unacceptable. Many in the community are as a result of this delay calling Arbcom's very existence into question. The refusal to come to a conclusion, echoing the MM case amongst others, demonstrates that Arbcom is no longer willing to deal with long-term problematic behaviour and is giving a free pass to those involved. What is worse is that even the vote to dismiss is being delayed. Please vote there as soon as possible, because the community needs some kind of closure and to prolong the case further is a disservice to the many editors who have spent time preparing the case. I'm posting this to your talk page as you are a sitting arbitrator, and I will be doing similar on the others'. Thank you, --78.145.83.124 (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing a point or two here. The case has sat in the Evidence phase while efforts have been made to render the evidence submitted into something to arbitrate. The sheer amount of so-called evidence dredged up obviously militates against a crisp case, anyway. The whole "free pass" discourse is basically nonsense. If some piece of admin conduct tomorrow is actionable, it can be brought up. I don't see that hustling arbitrators to give a quick closure is particularly consistent or helpful, either. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, since I've been following the case with interest and I'm not actually involved in any way, and it's not even my job. The issue of the delay of the case itself aside, could you please weigh in at least on the proposed decision to dismiss? --78.145.83.124 (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The point would mainly be that the motion will bring discussion about the case to the boil. So far, two votes and two opinions. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The detail in the elephant

The Geogre/Connolley RFAR was not supposed to be about Giano... and yet Kirill has added as a FoF an extensive collection of Giano quotations, which he describes as "public attacks against fellow editors".[2] Please note that, pushing the case further over towards being about Giano after all, Kirill had previously offered the same context-free collection in the workshop as "The elephant in the room".[3] I beg arbitrators to study the context Carcharoth supplies in "The detail in the elephant"[4] before they vote. It makes the elephant look rather different. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

I don't really understand. Giano is involved as the blockee, certainly. "Context-free" is a technical term of formal language theory, and only confusing here. Diffs are not context-free, decontextualised, in any sense. I think you are objecting to the implied "narrative", rather than anything else. On the other hand, such a FoF is rather routine in Arbitration: it provides context, for the actual case, rather than denying it. I'm not going to vote soon (I fly to Wikimania today). Charles Matthews (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please compare [5]. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

You should certainly note that no experienced Arbitrator would agree that the scope of a case is restricted in the way that suggests. The scope may be expanded, and also Arbitrators commonly vote against FoFs they find are too broad in scope. I actually strongly oppose, as a general point, the use of purely procedural arguments. Give the ArbCom greater support (I mean in the way of staff) and then come back with points about issues not being addressed in the ideal fashion. As usual, the real difficulties lie elsewhere. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Procedural? I wasn't referring to any aspect of procedure, but to those arbitrators that previously assured Giano that the case wasn't going be about him. My post was merely a reading suggestion, and I'm sorry I bothered you with it. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

We certainly seem to be talking here about what you say that person X said to person Y, and your interpretations, rather than any aspect of Arbitration. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert fitz Turold

Why move from Gilbert fitz Turold? Both versions are found in academic works. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

By coherence, no ? Why move from William fitz Osbern ? [6]. -- Geoffrey Calabria (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, since that is a redirect. That page was once William Fitzosbern, 1st Earl of Hereford and became William FitzOsbern, 1st Earl of Hereford at some point. But since fitz is as good as "son of" here, and given that way in other places, the Fitz isn't an improvement. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want, i corrected: Gilbert Fitz Turold -> Gilbert fitz Turold. Ciao. -- Geoffrey Calabria (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I request you to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism

As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :

• Brhmaand Pujan Critics’, News-Reviews.

--Dralansun (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford RFAR

Just a thought from someone who has been watching these events unfold: Please consider changing your vote back to Accept, if you "think ArbCom should rubber-stamp the desysop". If I understand this process correctly, yours has basically become the deciding vote to reject the case, unless someone else changes their vote in the very limited time left before the deadline. I believe that accepting the case and then possibly coming to the same conclusion as Jimmy Wales, i.e. that Bedford should not be an admin (if indeed that happens, as it may not), is a much better way to agree with the desysop. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess the above doesn't make sense, because I didn't check the time closely enough before I posted, and I see the deadline has already come and gone. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

humble request for advice

I am fairly new to wikipedia and would appreciate your advice. There is an ongoing disagreement concerning Native American vs. Climbing interests on Shiprock. Mostly it is resolved in this instance, but it looks like similar problems have appeared in quite a few climbing related articles. I am sure this can conflict could have some positive outcomes - namely encouraging inter WP cooperation. But how does one go about this? Thanks in advance for any tips you can provide. Diastar (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)diastar

Common sources for the Catholic Encyclopaedia

I notice you've been taking on the Catholic Encyclopaedia! After stubbing Joseph Gillow, I've had a go at making the sources cited by the Cath. Encyc., trying to make them less elliptical (providing author's forenames, and linking where appropriate). It would be good to have biographies of Bede Camm, Thompson Cooper, Thomas Francis Knox and John Hungerford Pollen - all of whose writings are repeatedly cited as sources. Also a page about the Catholic Record Society. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, of course. Gillow is great! But what I really want are ... more anecdotes about John Brande Morris. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What a great character. Added a little, though I had no books to hand. Hope the book's proceeding well. I wonder, do you think there are enough local wikipedians to warrant a Cambridge meetup some time? Dsp13 (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Books on the Oxford Movement tend to get a bit embarrassed about J. B. Morris. You're the second person to ask about a local meet-up, so I think the answer is "yes". CB1? A pub? Charles Matthews (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

CB1, CB2, a pub - I'm cheerfully indifferent. August might not be the best month for university types. Dsp13 (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Antoine de Mouchy

I have nominated Antoine de Mouchy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine de Mouchy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? S_RX 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from having no wrestling content, the article seems fine to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig Engel

Hello. I've come across your new article and would like to help you wikify the locations (Wagrein, Grillenberg). As we've got plenty of Austrian placenames registered on the English Wikipedia, it would be helpful to know which Grillenberg is meant here. There's one in Carinthia (part of Albeck, Carinthia with an abbey) and one in Lower-Austria (part of Hernstein). I feel even tempted to translate the German article on Schloss Wagrein into English. Regards, De728631 (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would only be guessing, but Engel does have an article in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Athelney Abbey

Thank you for creating Athelney Abbey. I have taken the liberty of adding some further information to it. Have you considered nominating it for "Did you Know"?— Rod ^talk 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No ... thanks for working on it. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alchemy TF

Hey, I noticed you have created or contributed to an Alchemy related topic. If you're interested, I'm trying to pull together a list of contributors who are interested in Alchemy for a Task Force. Nothing formal yet, just sending out feelers to other editors who are into the topic. If you're interested, let me know on my talk page. --Trippz (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in general terms and in a sort of scholarly way, I'm interested in alchemists. I created a few such articles, and I'd be happy to work on related historical material. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC) (will copy this to your talk page)

Eglinton Tournament of 1839

I think with a little more work, this article can attain Good Article status. I've done a bit of work on cleaning up the references and improving the organization of the article, but I don't actually know anything about the event, nor do I have ready access to most of the cited works. I know you've contributed to it in the past, can you help check items off the to-do list? Thanks, Cmadler (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the Girouard book, and could help with that. I'm deeply uninterested in the pedantries of conformity to the MoS, and other such prescriptive stuff. Better things to do, and wikis are permissive for writers, not an excuse for dirigisme. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tensor products of fields

Dear Charles,

thank you very much for initiating the Artikel "Tensor products of fields". You wrote there that often the tensor product of fields is a direct product of fields. Can you give any reference for this?

Thank you very much

Udoh (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you take two finite separable extensions, the result will be a product of fields. In fact the correct way to look at this is with some ring theory: if the nilradical of the tensor product is 0, then in all cases where you have tensor products of finite extensions you will have a product of fields. That is because commutative semisimple rings have an easy structure theorem, when they are artinian rings. There can only be a nilradical other than 0 in characteristic p. I suppose these facts are in many books on ring theory, as special cases. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your commentary. I already thought in this direction. If L is finite over K, then the tensor product of L with L over K is a finite K-algebra and thus an artinian ring. Thus by the structure theorem for artinian rings it is a finite product of artinian local rings. But why are these rings fields? And how do we use that the tensor product is reduced (trivial nilradial) if we are for example in characteristic zero?

And finally: What happens if the field extensions are not finite anymore? Is the tensor product artinian in this case too? Udoh (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If the field extensions are not finite, then that easy argument breaks down. In the artinian case, it is actually possible to find nilpotent elements other than 0, in some cases related to inseparable extensions (but only those cases). Here's an argument that can deal with most cases (of finite separable extensions): if L is a finite Galois extension of K of degree, and you take the tensor product of L with itself over K, consider an algebraic closure A of L. The embeddings σ of L into A are n in number, by Galois theory. The tensor product is the cartesian product of n copies of L with itself, in which L embeds "on the diagonal" by the sigmas. The dimension over K is n² as it should be. So we have an explicit description in this case, and if L is separable but not normal over K, the tensor product is a subring of what you get for a normal closure. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This argument using Galois theory is very easy and quite nice. But at the same time it is very restricted. In fact I am interested in infinite extensions (not even algebraic) in positive characteristic... Do you think one can get something at least for general separable extensions? Udoh (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there are good results. (For infinite inseparable extensions there is probably enough theory in David J. Winter, The Structure of Fields, but actually I have never read that book.) The real issue is why there should be "enough" composita of two fields of the same characteristic, and I believe inseparability should be the only obstruction. In fact trancendental elements don't really pose any problems - embedding pure transcendental extensions in some big field is easy, independent of any other elements. So I think the main point is to express what happens in algebraic extensions that are infinite and separable, and this still looks easy. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Euler angles

Hi Charles, at some point in the distant past you appear to have had a long discussion on the talk page for Euler angles. Your counterpart insisted early on that the only valid rotation sequence that qualifies for the term "Euler angles" is the z-y-z sequence, and he stated that aerospace engineers who use x-y-z and call it Euler angles don't know what they are talking about. Do you know the basis for this comment? Did Euler only use the z-y-z sequence himself? Thanks, MarcusMaximus (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't know where he was coming from, really. These days we'd insist more strongly that we couldn't take this material on the basis of original research and assertions of this kind. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I inclination would be that, just as Newton's 2nd Law is used today in differential form to relate the rate of change of momentum to the force, whereas he only stated it in terms of impulse and change in momentum, the modern times we use Euler angles in common usage to refer to any sequence of three rotations, and should not be constrained to Euler's (purportedly) original definition. MarcusMaximus (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cistercian Sisters

You created this the other day - to let you know, I've put it forward for renaming - Talk:Cistercian Sisters. HeartofaDog (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rules of Go

Hello, would you care to comment at Rules of Go on whether it is desirable for the rules to consider a stone/empty intersection to be connected to itself? 136.152.224.74 (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be the right kind of query. The article should only discuss existing rule sets, quoting those. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that paraphrasing existing rule sets is acceptable, the same way the precise text of the definition of "ring" on Wikipedia doesn't need to come from an actual source, so long as it is essentially the same.

It is probably desirable to paraphrase here, given the rule sets that exist. (At least we could count on a mathematical source giving clear definitions.) Even the better ones tend to give definitions of "connected" that are unclear, to the point that it is not possible to tell whether a stone is connected to itself. Sometimes it appears as if it is only when it belongs to a chain of at least two stones.

So my question can be reinterpreted as asking what is intended by those rule sets that do define the word "connected". 67.150.254.54 (talk) (same user as above) 22:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

On a point of common sense, "connected" should mean a reflexive transitive closure, naturally: to end up with stones divided up into chains, we need an equivalence relation. You should, however, take very good heed that the "no original research" policy means very much what I said before: there is no room in Wikipedia for what people think the rules should be, or how they should be expressed. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Errett Bishop

Hi, I would be interested in your reaction to my comments on Bishop at WP math. Katzmik (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made some copy edits there. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I created a separate page at Bishop ''vs'' Keisler. Hope I can keep my track record of successfully defending all of my articles challenged at AfD. Katzmik (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I was unsuccessful in reproducing italics in the page name Bishop_''vs''_Keisler. Katzmik (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page to Bishop-Keisler controversy; the old title is too much like a legal case, so it could be misleading. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, though the allusion was intentional. The only hezitation I have about your title is that it implies that Keisler got involved in it as well, whereas in truth Bishop did all the mud-slinging in my opinion at least. Katzmik (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So it needs to be put into context somewhat better. I made a lead section to the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

P. M. Pu

Please close the AfD when you get a chance. I will not be able to log in the next couple of days. Katzmik (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I should do that. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping Oleg would before I log off, but he is apparently not in town. Perhaps another editor could do it to make sure the article does not disappear by default? The outcome of the discussion seems pretty clear. Katzmik (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you should have too many worries. But it is better if some uninvolved admin makes the closure. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would have avoided the tag of "extreme math geeks" being thrown around, but as notability is relative to the field of endeavour that was pretty nonsensical. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I am not familiar with the term geek. Perhaps it replaced nerd after I left the US? Well, I must have been one in college :) Katzmik (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A geek is a nerd running Linux ... Charles Matthews (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the funniest piece I have read in years; thanks for the link. Katzmik (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

Hi Charles, Thanks for the note about redlinks, and not to remove them unnecessarily. Is there an easy rule on which items deserve pages and which do not? Surely not everything with a redlink deserves a page...? Hairy poker monster (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You can look at WP:REDDEAL for a guideline. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting on Proposed Decision - Alastair Haines

This (reasonably straight-forward) case has been open for too long, and has had no responses for nearly a week now when all it needs is a couple more votes before it's ready to close. Votes are required from at least 2 arbitrators - either yourself, FayssalF, FT2, Matthew Brown (Morven), Thebainer or Yellow Monkey. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently on leave, though. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind being marked inactive on all current cases, for now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't mind. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your prompt response - cheers! :) I've updated the Committee list, ACA template and tallies accordingly. As I think you're aware, you'll be moved back to "active" on the cases where you begin voting. Unless you've indicated otherwise, you'll also be moved to "active" on the Committee list when you return to voting. Enjoy your time off. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Help request

Hi Charles, I was wondering if you can take a look at my recent interactions with User:Mathsci and give your opinion? I have basically already stopped actively contributing to wikipedia because of his overbearing behavior; now it appears that he is willing to go even further and has started issuing me ultimatums, [7]. Thank you very much in advance! Arcfrk (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am going to leave a similar request at Paul August's talk page.

I have been in offline discussion with Mathsci. Please take the views expressed by Paul and me as more authoritative as an interpretation of the policy position. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I have done that. But I am referring to a different issue now (not entirely new), which involves targeting my contributions and me personally — besides the link above you can also see what happened at Littelmann path model and Restricted representation. I am concerned about WP:Harrassment and the (ab)use of WP:OR to prove a point. Arcfrk (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Right - please let Paul and me try to mediate effectively here, and do the necessary things in the background to try to deal with the issues. I'll mail you, probably tomorrow. 21:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you haven't enabled email. Please send me a mail through the site - and I'll explain what is going on about the matter you raise. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Charles. I have discussed the problematic editor Arcfrk with our friend User:R.e.b. by telephone last night. Arcfrk does seem to have become a mathematical troll. At the moment, no matter how much that might annoy him, I am contributing in my own expertise, which as you know was reported on in the Zurich ICM and in a Seminaire Bourbaki. Arcfrk seems to have serious personal problems with many editors: he should probably resolve these off-wiki. If not, I suggest a mathematics topic ban. He seems incapable of providing any sources for his talk page comments or edits. Many things he writes are demonstrably wrong. This seems to be an extremely serious problem, not limited to his interactions with me. I think in fact that he has been stalking my mathematical edits and has been using the slightest possible pretext to report me on WPM, now for the third or fourth time. Far from being a victim, he has been behaving like a bully. He does not seem to be particularly knowledgable as a mathematician. Why does he insist on stirring up wikidrama like this? It is not at all normal. Please pass these comments on to Paul August. You may reveal my RL identity. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC

FYI: I will be at ESI for about 2 weeks and therefore less present on wikipedia. If Arcfrk proposes that I be hung, drawn and quartered in my absence, please plead for clemency on my behalf. I believe that my recent mathematical edits far outnumber his. Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I just comment that while there is a "serious problem" here, you (Mathsci) appear to be part of it? In other words, what is required here is dispute resolution: this is a conventional enough situation where two capable editors have fallen out, and the efforts of others are going to be required to patch things up. I appreciate your willingness to have your real name disclosed as part of that - it will probably help. Apart from that, the use of extreme terms such as "troll" and "stalking" is only likely to exacerbate things and damage the prospects of getting everyone back to co-operative editing. If you can pull back a little from your own interpretation of the situation, and allow some mediation to happen, there are certainly members of the WikiProject willing to step in and clarify the issues between you guys, in measured offline exchanges, and with a view to dealing with everything involved. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me second everything that Charles has said here. Both of you, Arcfrk and Mathsci appear to be capable editors with much to contribute. Let's please try to find a way to work this out amicably. Paul August ☎ 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Mathsci has been brought up at ANI.[8] --Elonka 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bernard+

Hi Charles-- I copied your note to me to Talk:Bernard_of_Clairvaux#Content_copied_from_Catholic_Encyclopedia. I also put a note on the talk page of your Bourgueil translation. Cheers. -Eric ^talk 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is part of the discussion around User:Charles Matthews/Merging encyclopedias - some of the issues have been raised on the talk page for that essay. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -Eric ^talk 21:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

I read this about the "How Wikipedia Works" book: congratulations to you and your fellow authors! I am probably going to try and get hold of a copy. I think there are now several books about Wikipedia (the index one a while ago as well). Do you (or anyone else reading this) know of a list of such books somewhere on Wikipedia? Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, many congrats! (Do you know if it's on sale anywhere in Cambridge?) Dsp13 (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet - Amazon UK says it has a few copies only. (I have a handful of author copies - we could meet up if you just want to see it.) As for listing such books, I'd really rather leave that discussion to others - self-promotion here is rightly diadained. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't clear. By other books, I mean other books about Wikipedia by other people. i.e. All the books about Wikipedia written by Wikipedians. The other one I meant was by John Broughton, and I'm sure there are some others, but rather than try and remember, I assumed there would be a list somewhere. I've been meaning to have a look at getting some of them, along with the various DVD and other 'stable' releases of parts of Wikipedia. Maybe the book list is in the same place? Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(cc'd to Carcharoth's talk) I'm not sure there is a list, actually. Offhand I can tell you that our book & John Broughton's are the only books about the English Wikipedia that have been written. There's a book in German, one in Polish, and one forthcoming in Swedish. There's also a book about MediaWiki that was published. Andrew Lih's book, about the history of Wikipedia, is forthcoming next year. Then there's the collections of articles: WP 1.0, WP for Schools, and the German Brockhaus collection. I think that's about it... phoebe / (talk to me) 01:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your deletions

That's a pity - I spent quite a lot of time editing them and translating from the Italian

Johnbibby (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Emerging from World War II (and the company's nationalization by the Mussolini government), Marzotta sought to step up the growth of his business. During this period, Marzotta's travels led him to expand his business interests in a new direction, the hotel market, in large part in order to provide suitable lodging for himself during business trips.

That's what was on Jolly Hotels.

Emerging from World War II (and the company's nationalization by the Mussolini government), Marzotta sought to step up the growth of his business. During this period, Marzotta's travels led him to expand his business interests in a new direction, the hotel market, in large part in order to provide suitable lodging for himself during business trips.

That's the company history at Answers.com.[9]. You seem to have the knack of choosing precisely the same wording as M. L. Cohen, who wrote that.

Also, the Brifons House thing was a straight lift from a public authority document in English.

Please understand the seriousness of the copyright issue for us. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Error

History of Altötting and not of Oettingen in Bayern, can you see the discussion page [10] Excuse my bad english Papydenis (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction - I have moved the paragraphs to Altötting. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

London 14

Hi Charles, you may be interested to know that Wikipedia:Meetup/London 14 is scheduled for Sunday October 12. Best, WilliamH (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist at AfD

I don't know how much leeway this editor is given after the arbcom rulings there's been about him over the years, such as the pseudoscience arbcom. Here is an AfD by him Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Creative_visualization, where he seems to be making the AfD based on his personal POV/WP:POINT rather than having looked for WP:RS or anything first. I don't know if this is a matter for WP:AE as the pseudoscience ArbCom seems to leave any actions against Scienceapologist on this issues to admin discretion, also I know most people can completely understand and share his POV on these issues.:) So I wanted to just approach someone for an informal opinion as to how much Scienceapologist should be able to make AfDs based on his personal hatred of pseudoscience/new age etc and crusade, rather than whether articles meet WP:RS and so on. His personal view overrides his judgement as an editor on these issues. We all hate some articles, and some of them deserve to die, but we should check for WP:RS first, if we're established editors who know what we're doing in AfDs. Sticky Parkin 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, AfD definitely works case-by-case. What the nominator may have done in other cases shouldn't matter so much (OK, it is known for people to go berserk with Twinkle but that's another matter). The article has some pretty good nonsense about mentally training muscle memory, which should be in an quote if at all. I don't have great problems with that nomination. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD is not for clean-up or for getting rid of an article's current form, which anyone can fix. AfD is mainly about whether WP:RS exist, IMHO. I get annoyed/amused by peoples sloppiness at AfD, where they judge an article by its current form and try to nuke it rather than looking to see if it is in lots of WP:RS. I've rescued some pretty dire articles. Macaroni soup was tragic:) However, I couldn't particularly bring myself to work on this one.:) Sticky Parkin

I don't think flattening everything out to "reliable sources" is a great explanation of content policy, though. There are certainly things for which sources exist, and yet aren't topics we want. It's the great fallacy ... WP:NOT also matters, you know. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, isn't the only other really important thing out of WP:NOT that we can write an NPOV article on a subject, that it's got sources both pro and con so it's not a soapbox etc, and of course unless it is cruel to a WP:BLP subject? Or what else do you consider important at AfD? To me it would depend on the quality of sources- a thing might have only sources authored by one person, which would make it a bit different to something that's been in the New York times, the Guardian etc for instance as well as being mentioned in multiple other sources. Unless something is genuinely just news, or a neologism, I think something in reliable sources is worth an article, and even news etc. if it's been mentioned very frequently. Sticky Parkin 20:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there are good test cases of family history being deleted at AfD, in my view properly, simply because none of the people involved were really that important (though documented, and in the 15th century or whenever). That's the business about not "indiscriminate" - we are supposed to be discriminating, not taking everything. That gets lost in discussions simply based on "how do you know that?", not "why do we want to know that?". Charles Matthews (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiles

Perhaps you can improve my amateurish attempt at Mary Tiles. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

E. Laguerre

An article you created has been nomiated for speedy deletion. Please view the article and WP:PROD. Thanks, Hndis (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean "proposed deletion". By the way, who gets to say It is not a useful dab? Charles Matthews (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

François de Dinteville

Hello. You created this page as a disambiguation, and I can see why it might be useful. However as only one has an article and the other needed to be removed as per WP:MOSDAB red links, I have changed it to a redirect. If you start an article on the later bishop, then please change this back to a dab. Hndis (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I will, of course. Others might not. I don't accord MOSDAB Biblical status, and all guidelines need to be applied within common sense. It was really quite a harmless page and informative: not often two successive office-holders have exactly the same name. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup?

Time to put something in motion? Dsp13 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I might be going on a "summer holiday" at the end of October. We shouldn't clash with the mid-month London meet-up. Afternoon of 18 October (Saturday) or 19 October might be OK - perhaps upstairs at CB2 (we should ask ...), or at CB1. Sunday trains are currently bad from London. I suppose we might get 8 people? Charles Matthews (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask at CB2. No idea how many. Since it's the first such event, I should think it would be ok to post to the talk page of everyone in Category:Wikipedians in Cambridgeshire. Dsp13 (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be OK. I know some others, certainly. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Oversight

Done. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Arvind swamy

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Arvind swamy, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Arvind swamy is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Arvind swamy, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thompson Cooper - Times extracts

Hi Charles. For Thompson Cooper I have added two articles transcribed from The Times and added at WikiSource. I have added links to them in the Sources section of the WP article in the hope that you might find them useful for expanding the article. :-) Regards billinghurst (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those. There are still a few open questions about him. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Aristides the Athenian

With regards to the Aristides the Athenian page, I have replaced the hatnote because I did not realize I had deleted it in the first place. I realize I did not provide edit summaries but I will sum it up for you now; the previous article provided no evidentiary support for the claims being made so I edited the entire page. This is why I chose not to include the part on F. C. Conybeare; in my research I found no evidence to suggest he found the Armenian translation, however, if you would like to support this claim with scholarly publications I would be pleased to re-edit that section. This was my first time editing on Wikipedia and I could have edited it in a better manner (less times that is and provided summaries). You can check my sources if you please, any one of the books or articles can be found at your local university library. However, if you are just complaining about my editing skills and not the information, I apologize, we all cannot be Wikipedia gurus like yourself. (Jesse7 (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

No, I wasn't complaining, nor was I standing in judgement on the edits themselves. It is usually useful to point out some of our conventions. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ontological Status of Essence

The material as such, if it's properly noted as public domain free-to-use text, shouldn't be a problem. As you note, it can be used in better ways than it was used here, and I'm not certain that this article should itself be restored - had I waited 12 hours, it would have been a non-speedy deletion via AfD. But, on point, you're correct - the material should be fine, if used properly. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects update to "How Wikipedia Works"

Just saw the online version of "How Wikipedia Works". Some nice bits there (though some of it was like reading a slightly out-of-date version of the Help and Wikipedia namespaces). One thing I did notice (apart from my name in the history section because you quoted from Mzoli's Meats!) was that one of the sections about redirects didn't seem to mention User:Redirect fixer. Were you or the others aware of that or was it too late to make it into the final version? I saw the errata website, and might create an account there later, but thought I'd drop a note off here in the meantime. Obviously haven't read it all yet, but some bits do look fascinating. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Since my main writing effort finished back in February, there are numerous points where our coverage is looking a little obsolete. Also the idea that the book could be truly comprehensive ... well, it wasn't too realistic, and we settled for well-structured. (OK, I remember now, I mentioned it at a late stage but it didn't get in.) Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

Please check. Thank you. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

John Preston (clergyman)

The problem with drive-by linking such as you did here is that 2 out of 3 of the links are to disambiguation pages. I've fixed them. That said, the end result is that 2 out of 3 now point to an appropriate article, and t'other is a redlink. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you say "problem". I do linking, and I do "avoid dab" - look at my edit just before coming here. On balance I can't see that that's a problem. It's a division of labour, and that is fairly characteristic of the way the site works. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi. Just a reminder of the thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Consistency issue. I think all the editors there are willing-to-be-convinced; we just need some specific and representative examples to keep the discussion focused. I suggested the long blue (disambiguation), but anything long should be suitable.

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I'm thinking "a second blue link must serve an important interpretative function for the sentence fragment itself, and one that is not served by the first", as my version. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you respond at the thread itself? Just replying to me on your own talkpage won't further the discussion!

If you could edit a long disambiguation page (such as Mercury (the example currently used in the guideline), or Blue (disambiguation)) into the style that you would recommend (with a diff link showing the changes), that would probably be the most clear&efficient way to communicate your thoughts to everyone. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions

I've left a question or two for you here. Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci

Hi Charles, I am unblocking Matchsci. The Harrassment policy requires a pattern that demonstrates the intent to intimidate or threaten. I do not see any pattern - we would need a few different examples to indicate a pattern - and I definitely do not see the evidence you provided as indicating an intent to intimidate or threaten. My interprtation of the evidence is that matsci is trying to figure out how to help an editor contribute without violating copywrite (or academic standards of plagiarism). Based on th other editor's user page it wouldn't surprise me if he were the author, or a colleague or friend of the author, or just someone familiar with the book - who knows? In the worse case scenario, i.e. that the user is the author, boy would I HATE to think that anyone suggesting I had my research published in a book is a form of intimidation or a threat, I would be pretty proud. In fact, our NOR policy says that if you have original research and want to put it in Wikipedia you have to get it published by a reliable publisher first. It seems to me that many academics could be mislead by our NOR policy to think they can just copy and paste from their book to Wikipedia, clearly we cannot do this. And if the user in question is not the actual author, then the problem of violating copywrite is actually a bigger problem. This is an important concern, it gets to one of the five pillars. I think mathSci's concerns were reasonable and he was trying to be helpful. if you think he should have handled it differently I invite you to suggest to him other ways he could have acted. But I certainly see no evident of malice let alone a pattern of malice. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, since I know there has been too much heat around this already, I just want to underscore that while i don't agree with your specific judgement in this specific case, I did look into the facts to reach my own considered conclusions. i did not overturn your block lightly. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since you didn't give me a chance to reply, you did overturn the block lightly. I would gladly apprise you of facts of the case, and further instances of his "attempted outing". You obviously acted hastily, and outside WP:WHEEL. Look at the poor English and spelling above. Read the relevant policies, don't expecct replies in the middle of the night, and realise that, as I have made plain both here and at AN/I, I have background that you do not. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)