User talk:Mathsci/Archive 13

Language at ANI

Mathsci, you seem to be making strong statements at ANI, and I would ask you to tone things down a bit. For example, you have repeatedly called User:Zero g a WP:SPA.[1][2] I looked into his contribs, and he's definitely not an extremely active editor, but he has been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and has worked on a variety of articles. I would not classify him as a SPA. Also, the one message by Jagz to Zero g's talkpage was not a violation of Jagz's ban. However, you appear to be doing some "forum-shopping" posting both at ANI[3] and at MastCell's talkpage, trying to get Jagz blocked again.[4][5] Please stop. Plenty of administrators are reviewing the situation, you don't need to keep raising awareness of every little thing that Jagz does. If an editor is genuinely disruptive, then just "give him rope", and eventually things will be obvious. In the meantime, by yourself scrutinizing his edits too closely, especially because you were previously involved in a dispute, you can make yourself look even worse than the editor whose behavior you are trying to address. My honest advice is to back off at this point, and let other people handle it. --Elonka 14:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would similarly please ask you to refrain from describing good faith editors as "opponents" and using terminology like "organized tag team". My comments on WP:AN/I, written before your message, clearly show that I do not wish Jagz to be blocked again. In the second section (not created by me) I clearly said that the matter was not urgent and that Jagz will probably gradually reform. That he was exploring the limits of his ban is beyond a doubt. I wonder whether perhaps it might be better to concentrate a little more on content rather than form? Very few of anyone's edits come out in the best light on scrutiny. I have within the last few hours incorrectly identified a quote from Aelfric as being in his 17th sermon (On auguries). I now have now located one source of the original quote in

• Semple, Sarah (2003), "Illustrations of damnation in late Anglo-Saxon manuscripts", Anglo-Saxon England, 32: 231–245

I will try to access this article from my Cambridge account since proxies do not work. Similarly you wrote that Paris Match was founded in 1936, rather than 1949; and there are various other inaccuracies in your translation of the french WP article Regards (the present tense in French is used differently than in English when reporting past events and entitrés is probably best translated as "commissioned"). I have very clearly stated that I am not hostile to Jagz, that he has an excellent editing record in scouting articles and that I think he should be given a chance, rather than an indefinite block. However, I think it would be great if you could ask him not to discuss race-related article even behind the scenes on WP. This seems completely reasonable. I cannot deny that I find it odd when people just edit articles around Race, Eugenics, Dysgenics, Fringe science, etc. On the other hand one of my former colleagues in Cambridge, a Nobel laureate, was during the 30s in favour of eugenics, but it was just a fad of the times. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the Regards article! Seriously, if you see any errors, definitely correct them. I have been trying to untangle sources regarding two different French publications that are both called Regards, and though my French is fairly good, I am sure that yours is better. I welcome any changes you care to offer.  :) --Elonka 16:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a brilliant idea to call a Belgian publication "French". Mathsci (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I often use the word "French" for both "French national" and "French language", but I understand your point. In this case, I meant "two different French-language publications that are both called Regards". --Elonka 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The error is easier to understand if you were to substitute English and Irish for French and Belgian. BTW I have been counting my mainspace edits and the amount of mainspace content I have added to the WP over the last 24 hours. It does not seem to be as little as you have suggested elsewhere. Were you perhaps criticizing my questions to User:R.e.b. on his talk page? Or my thanks to User:Harland1 for his friendly message? Could you please be more careful about what you write in the future? Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? Sorry, I am not sure what you are referring to? --Elonka 03:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You wrote this a few hours ago.

The Jagz thread had recently reached the top of ANI, next to a couple of other longrunning threads that have been sitting there for awhile, and some admins who might not have paid attention to the thread when it was at the bottom of ANI, might be more likely to look at it when it's at the top, to see "why the valve is stuck". Another thing that they'll do, is start checking the contribs of all involved. For example: Jagz (talk · contribs), Zero g (talk · contribs), Ramdrake (talk · contribs), Elonka (talk · contribs), Slrubenstein (talk · contribs), Mathsci (talk · contribs), etc. If an admin scans through someone's contribs, and sees that a (non-admin) editor is spending more time posting at ANI and everybody else's talkpages than actually working on articles, then that can be a problem, and the editor may be nudged to "get back to work". At that point we may offer a reminder that our mission here is (usually) to create an encyclopedia, not to spend weeks discussing whether or not someone spat on the sidewalk.  ;) Anyway, hope that helps, and let me know if you have any other questions on the subtleties, --Elonka 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't include my name in such a list again as it quite likely to cause unintended offense. Being an administrator has so far not been about micromanagement and I very much hope that you will help keep it that way. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no criticism of you in that post, I was simply including the names of some of those who were posting in the ANI thread, including myself, to help educate ZG on how to review contribs. You have continued to work on articles, such as Witchcraft, as is easily visible when looking at your contribution history, so I am still not understanding why you would take offense. --Elonka 12:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact more importantly I finished off the first version of Zonal spherical functions, which User:R.e.b. is helping to fine tune now. For the witchcraft article I have access to many journals remotely, so, without any knowledge of Anglo-Saxon, I have been able to locate indirectly the quote from the Catholic homilies of Ælfric. I have not been able to look at the manuscript yet (I might be able to do that on Monday in Cambridge). Again your use of the word addictive on Jagz's talk page does not seem have been a great idea: I hope that you weren't applying it to me, because I would find that slightly offensive. Might it be possible for you to use a more neutral choice of words in future and restrict your comments to Jagz's behaviour rather than gripes you might have with other editors? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Cool, thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your interest in Australian law schools

Your interest is noted, perhaps you would like to participate more in editing Australian articles rather than solely participating in deletion discussions. Personally, I have no problem with anyone not from Australia editing Australian articles. regards Michellecrisp

Goodday. Many thanks for this kind message. Your use of the word "solely" is quite puzzling. I have in fact already edited articles on Clovelly, New South Wales, and the namesake of Penrith, Cumbria, where I detailed the twinning arrangements (with sources). I have visited the original border town of Penrith several times; I have also visited Glasgow (my brother lives there) and was able to verify the quote about Glasgow from Daniel Defoe which you had tagged, despite the fact that the travel journal from which the quotation came was explicitly mentioned in the text along with a wikilink to its wikipedia article and PD sources. Since you have very sweetly encouraged me to edit more Australian articles (I know a lot more about New Zealand), may I perhaps reciprocally encourage you to add content to the deficient history section in the article on Toulouse, which you have previously edited? This town was important during the Crusades (Raymond was based there) and in Roman times; any help you could give there would be more than welcome. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, it just seemed coincidential that you've joined in deletion discussions of articles I've nominated. I'll take a look at Toulouse. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will probably also make a comment if you eventually decide to nominate UWS School of Law for deletion. I have an interest in academic institutions (as an academic); I know several academic lawyers, including a former Regius Professor of Civil Law. Edits to WP can be highly random, because editors are often fickle creatures. There is probably no rational explanation of why I decided to source a translation of Ælfric's sermon in Anglo-Saxon against witchcraft and necromancy for the article on witchcraft. Perhaps somebody might write a Ph.D. thesis on this. I know that the editing behaviour of User:Mathsci (and possibly even of User:Michellecrisp) has partially been analysed in a UCLA Ph.D., actually without my permission. I shall of course demand a share of the royalties if it becomes a bestseller. :) Mathsci (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What's this about someone looking at our edits in a PhD? I am curious?! Michellecrisp (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you can find it now, but when by accident I did a google search for Mathsci I came across a reference to the Ph.D. thesis. I don't know whether it's still around. I think they were from the computer science department. Eventually there will be WP articles on people writing dissertations on the editing behaviour of WP editors. This information, if properly sourced, could eventually be useful in getting editors like me permabanned or if not placed under harsh editing restrictions, such as one edit of one word allowed every 3 days and only to articles on saints. :) Mathsci (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Aniket Kittur, et al, "He says, she says: conflict and coordination in wikipedia (2007)", etc, etc. Mathsci (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Mathsci was explicitly discussed in a computer science paper [6], in connection with the reduction of the BLP of fringe scientist Myron Evans to a biographical stub. Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, sorry for intruding, but just wanted to say thanks for that interesting link, as I'm always interested in learning about new Wikipedia studies. You may wish to add it to the table here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies. --Elonka 15:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Not at all. You must still be pretty upset with your misjudgement of Jagz. Better luck with your future "experiments" :) Mathsci (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that statistics is my area, but that's a real interesting article. thanks. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Goodday. The paper was posted by researchers in computer science. Why did you think it was statistics? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

They're using statistical analysis...I know it was about Wikpedia as a tool for information in the world of computers. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Progress in Physics

My edits were sourced, please see the reference to the exchange between Dmitri Rabounski and Gerhard Bruhn from Darmstadt University. Also, anybody can check the academic staff at University of New Mexico and see that Dmitri Rabounski is not a faculty member DS1000 (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. If Rabounski is not a member of staff of the Gallup branch of UNM, it does not need to be mentioned in the article. This is not the affiliation mentioned in the journal itself. The exchange between Gerhard Bruhn and Rabounski cannnot be used directly on WP: there was already an external link to their correspondence to indicate the operation of the "peer-reviewing" scheme. Some unsourced statements about living people, even if true, cannot necessarily be added to WP articles, unless they come from recognized sources. Please note that I am criticizing your style rather than your content - I'm sorry if you read it the other way :) Mathsci (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rabounski has supressed material critical of the wrong papers.This is a fact. Progress in Physics is a fringe journal. This is also a fact. How would you reflect this in the article? DS1000 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I think this appears to be what is happening in real life, but it cannot be said on WP, because blogs or personal web sites are not recognized sources for WP articles. (They are often suitable as external links.) Putting what I think, or what an academic can ascertain indirectly, would be WP:OR. The interchange between Rabounski and Gerhard Bruhn can be read in the external link. It has already been made clear in the article that there might be severe problems with the journal. For example some of the editors and contributors are banned from arXiv and write articles in a clearly inflammatory style. In the case of highly controversial journals, or when writing about fringe self-publicists like Florentin Smarandache, Myron Evans or Ruggero Santilli, the less written about them, the better. The published editorial evaluation of Myron Evans' work by Nobel laureate 't Hooft was a very rare example of something that can be used on WP. I know it's frustrating, but in this case WP is alas not about "truth"; it is only about what can be found in recognized sources. I hope this helps. If you can find a review in a peer-refereed journal that severely criticizes a paper there, that could be used. Unfortunately, the PiP seems to be classified as a fringe journal by reviewing journals and very few papers are sent out for external review. Another example of "less is more". Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "less is better", I have to agree with you. Crank journals like Progress in Physics, Apeiron,Galilean Electrodynamics, Hadronic Press (why is Santilli's "journal" missing from the list of fringe journals?) deserve only one brief entry that explains why they are categorized as..... fringe. Cheers DS1000 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of "hadronic" articles on WP, let us be thankful for small mercies. Here endeth the sermon. :) Mathsci (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, can I at least put back in "fringe" science journal in the description? It is in line with the category...DS1000 (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The categories represent the consensus at the last AfD but there is no WP:RS that says it's fringe so as Arthur Rubin says, "alternative" must be used in the text. I think the same has to be done for the reference to the journal in Florentin Smarandache. This time this is an initially self-written BLP which has been rewritten many times. There was a period when one very problematic editor, who had pseudoscientific articles published in PiP, tried to insert the content of these papers on WP. In the process he wrongly identified me as Alan Weinstein, chairman of the mathematics department at UC Berkeley, and a friend and colleague, on WP and all over the web on mathematics forums; this problem solved itself following a short email to his Ph.D. supervisor in Japan. These kinds of BLP's often misrepresent the achievements of the subject. (Problems of self-promotion in BLPs abound on WP.) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at the BLP for R.M.Santilli, it says clearly fringe scientist. Why can't we do this for PiP? After all , PiP publishes stuff that is even or worse. :-) DS1000 (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It says that he is a "proponent of fringe scientific theories", which is correct. The same is said about Myron Evans. On the other hand Florentin Smarandache is not a proponent of fringe mathematics - his discoveries are often just not particularly interesting or original. Bill Unruh has had correspondence published in PiP, in response to a pseudophysics article: he is a mainstream physicist. It seems fair to describe it as an alternative journal; however, it might also be reasonable to mention in a neutral way that many of the authors have had difficulties posting their work to the arXiv (if accepted it will usually be classified as general science) without further comment. You could mention Carlos Castro or Stephen J. Crothers as examples in a footnoted reference. There must be quite a few others. You might also find it helpful to post your queries on WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, my question was "why can't I put back the [i]fringe[/i] in the main body of the article describing PiP?" DS1000 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You can, but not to describe the journal. With proper sources, it is possible to show that the journal has published articles that have not been accepted on the arXiv, because they do not fall within the normal categories of mainstream physics. So it would be fair to write that it publishes articles by proponents of fringe scientific theories, because this could be backed up with sources in footnotes. So you can say what you want to say, but only with a little bit of effort and care. It's not possible to write that the journal only publishes fringe physics and rejects mainstream physics, because this is probably untrue. It does have a method of refereeing which makes it apparently quite easy for pseudoscientific articles to be accepted. Mathsci (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You made an edit without even waiting for reply from me. The edit provided an unsourced link to a disambiguation page. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

good to be back ...

... sort of. I have to admit that the whole Jagz affair, and the way it was handled, left me with sad feelings about Wikipedia. I am sorry that you were the ultimate victim of his wrath, but I am guessing it was childish enough to make you laugh rather than feel wounded ... still, I am sorry that any one would say such things to/about you. Frankly, I find it shocking that anyone here would say such things to any editor, but Jagz is a racist troll and it was just a matter of time before he fully displayed his character. What really saddens me is that there are still editors who wish to excuse his behavior, who think he was somehow goaded into it. There is no excuse for the things he wrote, none whatsoever, and I really have to wonder how supportive of the project are those who make excuses for Jagz (ZeroG I think is the obvious example).

Did you write that you were writing from your sickbed? I hope you are feeling better. I was at a conference but the wikibreak was good for me and I would like to stretch it out a bit! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

advice?

concerning this? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was asleep. The outcome seems to have been satisfactory. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes things at Wikipedia actually work the way they should! Anyway, thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Contributions

I did not "snipe a word here and there, if you looked carefully at my contributions I wrote fairly large and complex pieces. DS1000 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your largest change seems to have been here [7], mostly written by other people. Zonal spherical function is an example of a "large and complex piece" almost wholly written by one editor. The word is also "snip" not "snipe". Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You are modest as well :-) DS1000 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

About quoting? Mathsci (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to make the changes to Progress in Physics that I suggested you might make so as to mention fringe science explicitly in the main text. Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you DS1000 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) Mathsci (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon

Replied on my talk page (in case you miss it). --Folantin (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to add that information to ANI. I was only responsible for the etymology section on the Chechen page but it was pretty obvious something funny was going on when Kuban Kazak showed up and asked for a reference for referenced material. I'm coming to the conclusion many of our articles which attract this kind of chauvinist edit-warring are simply not viable under the Wikipedia system as it currently exists. There's something Canute-like about attempting to hold back the flow of skewed content. That's why I prefer to spend my time editing opera articles now. We only seem to have "Wiki-dramas" there every three months, instead of every three minutes! Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed him over the last week at European ethnic groups, a page which occasionally attracts POV-pushers and nationalists. Having bought the second volume of Winton Dean, I do intend at some stage to edit articles on Handel operas. (In a sense I've already edited almost all the Handel opera articles at least once, because I added Dean's books as references whenever applicable.) You may be interested to know that at present in Aix we're in the middle of the Opera Festival - I went to Siegfried twice (Rattle, BPO) and have Belshazzar (Jacobs), Fairy Queen (Christie), Cosi (Rousset) and Zaide (apparently awful) coming up. I'm currently trying to nurse a summer cough which is not particularly good for opera :( Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lucky you - going to the Festival, I mean, not the cough. If it doesn't clear up, maybe you'd better avoid "Belshazzar" just in case it comes out on a live CD. I might want to buy that one ;) ! --Folantin (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's on the July 17th so I think you're safe. But thanks for the thought :-) Mathsci (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Prime Number Implementations

Yes, I saw it. I don't have time now but will prod or AfD later today if nobody else has done it by then. I had already told the creator at User talk:CarlHinton that Wikipedia is not a code repository. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

European culture

I guess if you cannot understand my discussion on this point, it would probable be better to ask me for an interpretation rather than ask a third party such as Dab.Muntuwandi (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He is not a third party. He wrote the material. You on the other hand just appear to be making a WP:POINT and I don't know why. Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Answered the question you left on my talk page, here. Regards, --Ramdrake (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess i owe you an explanation

I admit i said something stupid on the Ukrainians in Russia talk page, but once i was explained and reverted i haven't repeated that. You better explaine me why Hillock65 returned it after it all was reverted, and esspecialy after on few talk pages of Ukrainian users i said sorry. I'm a new user and till Kuban Cossack explained me by mail that Wikipedian talk pages are not forums i havent known it's not the place for such things.

That doesn't give Captain America and his friends the right to isult me on me opinions. I could easily return them and switch the derection to my opinions (for example. Western democracy is a phantom ideology that sells people what they want to hear while de-facto it did some of humanities worst crimes). It's not nice for you to hear right? You have a reason to say me that what i do is against Wikipedian policies because it has nothing to do with the article and the topic? Well, thats what they did. We talked about reliability of sources, where is the place for me being a National Bolshevik? Thats against Wikipedian policies. Log in, log out (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I think it's best to exercise moderation here on WP. This involves in particular accepting the WP rules for reliable sources and not trying to denigrate an American professor, because you think there have been academics elsewhere with shady reputations. That is a fallacious argument. You can have any political or religious persuasion that you like, but you must abide by the WP rules of WP:RS and WP:V as far as using sources is concerned. Sometimes there are grey areas - that's why there is a WP noticeboard, just in case. I hope this answers your question. Mathsci (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I already gave the example of American professors who denie the holocaust, degree is not all. You also need to make shure that academic has no political agenda. The references they brought were of professors who have a large opossition of other professors. Kuban Cossack brought Russian professors who contrasted those American professors and very easy showed them wrong. Log in, log out (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And you havent said anything about Captain Obvious and his friend bringing the discussion down to a personal level. I dont remember me coming to a level of touching their opinions. Log in, log out (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Look. Please notice that he brought the discussion to an off-topic political debate, when he held in a rude way. Dont tell me a user like that deserves less then a week block.

If he would do that one time because of not knowing, like me on the Ukrainians in Russia page, that would be fine. But he was told many times there and he simply ignored it.

of all his quotes there i ignore for a second all the insults, there not important. That is important: "Stop writing the most idiotic things like these you just wrote ("Stalins purges but not more then the MacCrthysm in the US"), unless I decide you're a hopeless case of a surviving Homo Sovieticus and end this discussion now."

Here he admitts that what he wanted is to agitate his views. Is Wikipedia an agitation toll? I really hope not. Log in, log out (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec):The core problem here has to do with sources. I do not believe there is any formal connection between Folantin and Captain Obvious: it's not useful to think of them as "friends". Again you have reiterated a fallacious argument for dismissing academics. The only way you can evaluate the political bias of an academic here on WP is if somebody has written a review in a peer-reviewed journal commenting on their bias. Otherwise it would count as original research. What exactly do you know about Johanna Nichols? Mathsci (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny that in Russia, Ukraine, and the states he claims to stud, this professor is not known at-all. There ain't even articles on him in those Wikipedias. Thats why Kuban brought notable Historians. He's considered a very-lets say middlevel historian. And please response to me about Captain obvious and Folantin going down to a personal level. Log in, log out (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Johanna Nichols is a female professor of linguistics, with a knowledge of the Ingush and the Chechens. Why is it important that you should have heard of her? Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A question. If i'm with an education in Math, but i'm "with knowledge" in music, am i a reliable source for music? She is from the department of Slavic languages right? So why is she used as a reference an Chechen language, which is not Slavic? She has a specalisation, and only there she can be used as a source. Log in, log out (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

She is an expert on Chechen. She received a grant from the NSF in 2000 for one of her projects. Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If talking on Chechen, use a Chechen professor. I live in Smokensk but i studied in the United States. And i met some professors in Russian language there. Sorry for the words, but they are idiots!!! They make the mistakes of 3 year old kids in Russia while talking. And you want to give them invastigate? If what she says is true, then shurely you could find professors from Chechnya to justify that. Wouldn't it be better? That would be more professional, i think. Log in, log out (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This kind of generalisation is unreasonable. Goodbye, Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

I wonder whether - 'dear reference-less article creator' you could just create the article completely in your sandbox before creating it. Also you could just add the requested references and remove the template like an adult rather than trying to be clever. I don't play video games, and I don't use WP as a substitute. Mfield (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not how I edit. I suggest that you temper your language and actually make an attempt to read edit summaries. When I edit longer pieces (and editing on this piece has not finished) edits can go on for weeks - eg Zonal spherical functions. Please don't tell other WP editors how to edit. You interrupted me while I was in the course of adding two references. That references were to follow was indicated in the first edit summary. Please,please, please, be more patient and take a few seconds to read edit summaries. And do not post obscenities on my talk page. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It is completely policy to add templates where they are needed, its only some text and it's easy to remove. You could and should have added a {{underconstruction}} tag to make it clear that was what was happening. You don't want me to tell you how to edit but you are sure happy enough to tell me I note. And may I suggest you learn how to temper your language if you don't want to irritate people into responding to you the way I did, especially if you are going to take mock offence at a mild poke - (and smart ass doesn't count as an obscenity - it's just a quicker way of saying smug and patronizing). There was no need for you to even leave me a comment in the first place, like I said you could have just added the references and removed the template but instead you have caused this by leaving me a message that accused me of being some kind of ADD afflicted video game refugee. That's the end of the matter. Mfield (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I know about this. It's not the first time it's happened which is why I made an explicit reference in the edit summary. If I hadn't left that message in the first edit, you might perhaps be justified in your remarks. I just don't like seeing a message within 1 or 2 minutes of creating the article when it's clear I was still continuing to edit. Besides which didn't you notice that this was the translation of the French WP stub of the same name, part of Wikiproject France? This was stated in a sentence at the bottom using the standard template. Perhaps this is not the sort of thing recent changes patrollers know about. Anyway the actual piece will be performed in approximately 1 hour from now near the statue of Rene I (in the article) after which all will be calme,luxe et volupté. Bonsoir et bonne continuation, cher ami :) Mathsci (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks plus news

Thanks for all your comments at ANI. In related news, the same admin who blocked me for 3RR has now done the same to Dbachmann (48 hours, no less!). --Folantin (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's unblocked. I think we can cut the admin a bit of slack because apparently s/he's the only one who regularly bothers with 3RR. It's another system failure. Where are most of the other admins hiding? --Folantin (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice

You have keen powers of observation and may be able to become and administrator. Please don't carry grudges against other editors, such as Elonka. That will tend to reduce your chances. If you want to help out, there are many interesting cases at WP:COIN and WP:SSP where you can help with investigations and by evaluating the evidence presented by other editors. In these matters it is best if you have no personal stake in the conflict. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Jonathan. I have no wish to be an administrator. I have no idea why Elonka has used the inflammatory words "lynch mob". It seems quite ill-judged. Jagz made some reasonable edits once but regressed into a WP:SPA for the past nine months or more, as MastCell observed. He was editing problematically when Elonka started mentoring him. He defaced my user and talk page once while he was being mentored (Elonka said it was a joke) and once with a penis image from an anonymous IP in Florida after his indefinite block. I don't bear a grudge against Elonka, I just think she has to seriously rethink how she interacts with good faith editors and seasoned administrators. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1684 and all that

Thanks for your messages - I have added William Musgrave to Wiki. I think Gordon Manley is explicit about what area he is covering with titles such as 1684: The Coldest Winter in the English Instrumental Record. Weather Journal 1975 Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to reading it! Manley only treated a triangle in central England with London at a vertex: this is made clear on the RMetS data bank. It would be fascinating to locate the correspondence of Molyneux and Musgrave. The early days of the scientific societies in London, Oxford and Dublin makes for very interesting reading. It seems from what I've read that Molyneux at exactly this time (1683) encouraged Irish scholars to become active on the scientific scene, acquiring scientific measuring equipment and entering into correspondence with scientists the other side of the Irish Channel. I have no access to the book of Gunther at the moment, but it would be great if a page from the "weather diary" could somehow find its way onto WP. There is also the meteorologist Plot from the same period, who I think with Lister also made weather diaries, which were quite the rage then. There could also be French sources (the "countries to the South" referred to by John Evelyn). Mathsci (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing you have seen Page 7 of 12 fromPhilosophical Transactions No 169 -(ie under Musgrave's editorship) - tantalisingly close! Lucian Sunday (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No I hadn't. I wonder if this is the same as the illustration in Gunther's book? I'll go and look again on jstor under Plot. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Information Overload!! Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

Just a note to tell you that you can't merge/delete since that would remove the edit history of the merged text, which is required under the GFDL. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Check this nonsense out

Remember that National Bolshevik troll who was allowed to bait me on ANI and elsewhere (Log in, Log out was his moniker then but he was originally User:M.V.E.i.)? Well, after several more incarnations he's now pleading to be allowed back on Wikipedia because he finds sock puppetry too hard [8]. This place gets more and more unbelievable by the minute! --Folantin (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This person has already had plenty of second chances (whether granted by the community or by himself). Wikipedia is hard enough to edit as it is without the presence of such troublemakers.

I'm glad Belshazzar was a success. Jacobs certainly has a way with Handel and his Giulio Cesare must be one of the finest performances of a Baroque opera on record. I hope Belshazzar (sans sneezes!) does emerge on CD because that's a gap I need to plug in my library. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

William Molyneux

If you are interested in him/working on him, I have quite a few books on the effects of his philosophy on Irish nationalism. However, I had to move him down on my priority list. But I always like to help out people who seem to want to work on a topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. My interest is in the early days of the Royal Society as I am unqualified to write articles on politics. The source that I added does make it clear that Molyneux, lamenting the poor state of seventeenth century science in Ireland, regarded it as an essential function of the Dublin Philosphical Society to enter into active correspondence with scientists in the Royal Society. Molyneux himself corresponded extensively with the first Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed and with William Musgrave, the second secretary of the Royal Society. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey

As our paths have crossed over the last couple of months owing to some surreal wiki-events, what I knew before only becomes more and more evident to me, and I just can't refrain from posting it on your talk page: you are an exemplary Wikipedian in every way. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

do you have any comment on

on the criteria for notability of accademic books? If you have time could you comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

blp issues

I'm going to be traveling for the next few days, and away from computers, so this is a quick response before I go. Regarding the article on Atiyah, I think that several neutral admins are aware of the page, such as Elonka and Nishkid64, who are equipped to handle the BLP issues. Regarding images, I don't have the energy to discuss them at length, but in general I prefer content-specific images instead of images of mathematicians. In areas with a geometric focus, there are a lot of images that convey more understanding than a photograph of a famous name. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles Matthews and other mathematical admins such as David Eppstein are watching the page (non-mathematical admins, although well intentioned, are probably not in the best position to judge all the issues). I have drawn 2 technical images for the article and will draw a third for parallel transport. The fact that the article contained a serious mathematical error concerning the 2nd fundamental form and the shape operator seems far more important than the issue of images. I think that this error originated in an unorthodox definition in the otherwise excellent introductory book of O'Neill, often recommended as an (under)graduate textbook. Sorting out the confusion was not helped by another highly unorthodox feature of the book - its total lack of references. Here the recent book of Gray, Abbena and Salamon was useful. BTW this profusely illustrated book has a large number of technical illustrations as well as images of mathematicians. I agree that images of mathematicians go best in historical or more informal sections. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I felt it is fair to know that I have posted a wikiquette alert. This is response to your use of the phrase `Indian extremists' to describe me and other editors. I have never indicated my nationality to you and to my knowledge neither have the other editors involved in this dispute. Under these circumstances, since the issue of ethnic origin, is not relevant to the topic at hand, I feel that your phrase is tantamount to a racial slur.

I also do not appreciate your repeated allegations, without evidence, that I am a sockpuppet for Bharatveer. Perusnarpk (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your forum shopping. Haven't you caused enough disruption already? When editors start using words like "eurocentric" and "exposing western idols", that would seem to represent an extremist viewpoint . It was User:Abhimars who made these remarks on Talk:Michael Atiyah, but you, he and User:Bharatveer seemed to be acting in concert. Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

European ethnic groups

There is a debate brewing here - could you keep an eye on it? You may have nothing to add to it now, but perhaps in the near future you would be able to make a helpful comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)