User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 3

 ← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Request for mediation

Hello. You requested mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Do you have any prefernece as to mediator? There is a list of current mediators at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. I'm sorry for any delay in responding to your request. Regards -- sannse (talk) 15:24, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

I agreed to mediation - not my initiative. Not Ed Poor, nor Stevertigo, in my preference. Someone with a university background in a science, computing or mathematics area would be better; not essential, though.

Charles Matthews 15:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said "agreed to". I believe Anthere has a background in computing and science, my degree is in biochemistry (I'm very out of practice though). I'm not sure about the others but will look further once Kevin baas has responded. Thanks for the reply -- sannse (talk) 15:45, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hello Charles. Kevin has expressed a preference for Angela and she is available. She doesn't have a science/mathematics/computing background (although she does have a degree), but I don't think that this is vital - in particular because she will not be making decisions on article content. Would she be acceptable to you or would you prefer to discuss an alternative mediator? -- sannse (talk) 19:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you say no 'decisions on article content', isn't that prejudging the process? I know Kevin was saying something like that. The first of my mediation points relates to improving the content of a group of articles. And the situation has arisen in relation to a specific VfD discussion. However, I will accept your recommendation of the best mediator, most likely to make progress here. Charles Matthews 20:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't say that no decisions will be made during the process, just that it isn't the mediators role to make those decisions - she is not an arbitrator in other words. But the exact process of mediation would be up to the mediator in question and the participants so I won't comment more here. I will talk to Angela, and hopefully she will contact you all soon. Thanks for the reply -- sannse (talk) 20:35, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've been assigned as the mediator between you and Kevin. Do you have any preference as to how the mediation takes place? I would prefer it be done by email, but you also have the option of using a page on Wikipedia, a page on meta:, the mediation boards or the #mediation.wikipedia IRC channel. The request for mediation has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 6. Before the mediation starts, please can you let me know that you agree to abide by the conditions laid out in Wikipedia:Confidentiality during mediation. Thanks. Angela. 01:08, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

By email please. I will of course treat the mediation as confidential. I'll go and read that page shortly. Charles Matthews 07:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have sent you an email about some of the aims Kevin has for the mediation. Angela. 18:43, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

I have looked at said page, think I understand what is posted there; and don't have any problem with abiding by it. Charles Matthews 18:46, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Horseshoe map

(William M. Connolley 10:10, 2004 May 14 (UTC)) Charles, could you have a look at this (please) and check that the function as specified is correct. It looks wrong to me to I'm scared of venturing in to Real Maths :-). x > 1/2 means 1-2x < 0 and the point disappears off the unit square (the map *is8 on the unit square isn't it: it doesn't say so in the article).

2x - 1 looks like a better bet. Someone has cut the article right back. I found web links immediately by googling 'horseshoe map Smale'. These have pictures, which show the kind of thing. Yes, this should be on the unit square. Charles Matthews 10:17, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

WMC: OK, I swapped it to 2x-1. I'm not at all sure about the deletions: whoever cut that back seemed to be rather over-sure of themselves.

Nomination

Hi Charles. Yes, I'll accept the nomination if you wish to do so. Thanks for your confidence in me and regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:49, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Me (Tosha)

Thank you for support, in fact I realized that I probably do not need to be an administrator, but do not want to remove it, it is fun to see what people think about me.

Tosha 21:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Say hello to Lyonya Vaserstein from me, some time. Charles Matthews 15:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

TeX

TeX ain't working, e.g.

$\mu \quad$

gives an error, which is about as simple as it gets. (some executable isn't there). CSTAR 15:31, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well I guess it's working now.

What's the policy on in-line TeX? It used to be awful, and desirable to avoid, but I notice more use of it now (e.g. in the added stuff on Paley-Wiener) Am I imagining things or is inline TeX better displayed.

CSTAR 21:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It might depend on one's browser; it could be that the recent format changes have helped in some way (it used to be that it would display badly because of the vertical spacing). Since I'm very ignorant of TeX, I hardly use it myself.

Charles Matthews 06:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Peano axioms

Charles,

Do you know much about model theory? I'm in a discussion with someone at Talk:Natural number about the Peano axioms, there seems to be some confusion between 2nd- and 1st-order versions of them. If you have any comments...thanks. Revolver 12:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The page isn't the clearest - but what is said about the second order formulation seems to be right: the normal way of thinking about induction is phrased 'any property' (second order), but there is a first order (axiom schema, but that page doesn't yet exist) way of saying it once per property P, that can be 'said' in the first-order language. Then there will be non-standard models of the first-order version.

Charles Matthews 14:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mathematics publications list

Charles

Seeing that there was a fairly new and underpopulated list of publications in mathematics, I was considering adding to it, when I noticed there is also a list of mathematics publications, books etc. in a sub-section in the list of mathematics history topics. I think it would be a good idea to merge the two lists - do you have strong views on where the merged list should reside ? (I am happy to do the work, but I didn't want to just dive in and move things around unilaterally.) Gandalf61 14:45, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

I assume you mean just to merge the publications sublist. It should probably move from the history list to the list of publications, in that there are other such publications lists.

Charles Matthews 14:49, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I just meant I would merge the publications sublist. As you suggested, I have now moved this sublist to the list of publications in mathematics page. Gandalf61 15:30, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've added a forward link from the history page. About time we had some Greek mathematics ... Charles Matthews 15:42, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Miller and Shankland articles

Hi Charles

I noticed today that both the article on Dayton Miller and Robert Shankland include statements like this:

"Computer analysis after Miller's death on the little available data has proven that the shifts were statistically significant. Lately, there has been more of Miller's papers from the possession of R. S. Shankland to surface and they are awaiting future analysis."

In short, the articles imply that Einstein's theory of Special Relativity has no basis in experimental evidence. This is a common claim of crackpots on the internet and the real world, and definitely completely contrary to the deeply rooted convictions of everyone in mainstream physics (whose beliefs were probably once based experiments much more accurate than attempts to measure "aether wind" from particle physics or atomic physics, but are these days probably more akin to religious beliefs taught to them in their academic cradles)

anyway, i have half a mind to just delete the offending comments, but well, that seems contrary to wikipedia policy. I was also slightly put off by the long list of references to publications by Shankland. How do i know that one of those references doesn't actually point to supporting evidence of what the articles claim? I do know that it was Shankland who first rebutted Millers results, so i think it unlikely that any of Shankland's publications will be making those claims. It would, of course, be an embarrassing situation if a statistically significant signal for aether drift has ever been measured.

To recap: it is a commonly held crackpot belief that Miller measured aether, and a commonly held scientist's belief that Shankland proved that Miller did no such thing. I think a physics article should present first and foremost the scientific view (although a presentation of the controversy would be good. Maybe that could have its own article though?)

advice appreciated Lethe 02:25, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

PS: I don't know if you are the right guy to talk to about this? or whether it would be better to just make an edit and post my complaints on the talk pages?

You're probably best moving the offending statements onto the talk pages, and give your reasons for contesting them there. You may still stir up a hornet's nest ... Charles Matthews 08:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of go topics

Charles, I've renamed the article "List of go topics" to "List of Go topics"—Go is a proper noun. Your "New pages" wikipage links to the old name, and I'd rather not edit your personal pages directly. Cluster 04:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why, really. Do you intend to make it list of Chess topics?

Charles Matthews 08:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

War poets

Don't know whether your new article indicates an abiding interest. If so, you are probably aware of our SSF page at www.sassoonery.demon.co.uk/sassoonsocy. Deb 16:32, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - Sassoon isn't actually a favourite of mine. I felt I should put something there, and a bit more than a placeholder, as I'd created a war poet link on another page. Charles Matthews 16:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay - but there's other interesting literary stuff on the main site - [www.sassoonery.demon.co.uk]. Deb 16:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What I actually do with poetry, currently, is to go through (too) many anthologies to see who gets included at any one period. This means I get sidetracked into 'collecting' minor poets, mostly. Anyway, that is supposed to be a hobby - my previous hobby became a bit serious! Charles Matthews 16:46, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Calculus

Currently that is quite a horrid article and I would like your help in improving it. See that talk page for more. Thanks, - Taxman 02:30, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've restructured the article, moving out the large chunk of PD encyclopedia text that was dominating it, and replacing the intrusive calculs topic box by a category tag. I've also cut down the intro section by shifting parts of it lower down the page. This should have opened things up for someone else to go into the text and improve it. The notation section should at least link to some of the articles on Newton's notation, etc.

Charles Matthews 07:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Undeletion request

It's been a long time since we have talked. That article a long time ago called "Real definition of a Republic" has been changed to "Classic definition of republic". It is now a professional clean article, complete and thorough.

Need support on an undelete. Talk:Nazism/Seperate-National Socialism I would like your support to undelete this and restore as a proper standing article. Some content was moved to the Nazism article and has been made a redirect. The Nazi article is too long. *National Socialism* was not created by either Mussolini nor Hitler and the history of its development needs to have a seperate article upon it. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.WHEELER 18:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've glanced at the article. I see evidence of serious research there; I also see plenty with which I'd want to take issue. So, let me urge you to do something with this material, to add to WP's coverage of the issues involved. I don't spend time here on twentieth-century history articles, so I don't feel well-informed on what exactly the coverage is. I'm not at all sure that an undelete would serve best. By the way, 'separate'. Charles Matthews 18:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)