User talk:Mathsci/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mathsci. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Evidence

Your evidence is fine. I have been filled in on the rest of the special situation, where they are allowing longer sections. Thank you for cooperating, and have a good one. hmwith t 21:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Article rename proposal

Hello, I thought I'd check with you first, but its customary to include a space between the "Op." and the number in article names. Would it be OK if I moved your articles to Handel organ concertos Op. 4 and Handel organ concertos Op. 7? DavidRF (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this message. No, please don't. I used the spacing I found in print and have used it throughout the articles for Op.7 No.2, etc. I have created 2 redirects with your spacing. Honestly, this is the least problem with writing these articles! There's already been a discussion about the plural of concerto and I have been pondering how and where to discuss the remaining concertos (some of which are just transcriptions of the Op.6 Concerti Grossi). Perhaps the best thing is to write an article first on Handel concerti grossi ... Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Sure. I concede its a rather trivial point, but one that has been discussed quite a bit (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_17 and after looking at thousands of WP:CM articles, the lack of space does stick out as unusual.

Yes, it does seem lame to worry too much about this stuff, but article renames are messy so its hard to go back and forth with conventions as one can do in the text... hence the discussion beforehand. Since your decision was thought through and not arbitrary, I won't contest the article names any further. Nice articles, by the way! On your other point, my two cents would be to have separate articles for the opus three and opus six concertos. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the separation is completely natural for Op.3 and Op.6 for lots of reasons (orchestration, borrowings, time of composition, purpose). Op.6 is one of his greatest achievements. There's also the Concerto in Alexander's Feast. I downloaded from amazon.fr today Egarr's recently released harmonia mundi recording of the Op.7 set (released yesterday as a CD in the US, but not yet here in France). There are some movements, like the third movement of Op.1 or the first movement of No.4, which it would be hard to imagine better played (differently yes). Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia Review

(Double-checked with an arb just to make sure). Again, unless you feel it's really relevant to the issues the case is mainly about, it probably doesn't belong in the case. I don't see that this is the case, so it's probably best to remove it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several findings/principles/remedies/etc. that have been proposed that deal with possible admin abuse by WMC. From what I can tell, Ikip's evidence is at least relevant to that particular topic, and he's certainly asserting as such. Evidence, by its very nature, is very likely to be slanted to the provider's point of view. There's not much I can do about that. If you feel it's distorting the truth, you might want to offer an analysis in the workshop to that effect, or include some additional evidence with comments from the other side of that discussion. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

mistake?

Hi, did you accidently crop Abd's post here while inserting the heading? I am just asking because everyone seems to be so sensitive in this case. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 03:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

harvnb + harvtxt + general comments

Responding to: "I noticed in the von Neumann algebra article and in the quantum KZ-equation you are adding references in a strange way. If others have used the citation template, it is probably best to do the same."

i started the qKZ article and did not use the citation template, hence, comment doesn't apply.
the vN article had no line citations at all, (==Notes== section was added), hence also not applicable. but i am willing to use the ref/cit format you describe if you would please give an example or point to one.

"In the text you can add a harvnb (with page number) or harvtxt template which links to the notes and thence to the references. You can add a URL in the citation template as others have already done"

URL is contained in the line citation i added.

"For v N algebras, the terminology noncommutative measure theory, general topology (=Gelfand-Naimark correspondence), algebraic topology (=K-theory), differential geometry (=cyclic cohomology) is best explained in Connes' 1994 book."

best??, are you suggesting connes should be the sole ref?

"I don't think quantum KZ equation is very well written yet - you still introduce too much terminology without explanation."

commented below

"You removed the tags I added."

why state the obvious?

"It is possible to explain the equations in complete analogy with the usual KZ equations (which people rarely called classical)."

yes, possible. but don't know about "complete" to YOUR satisfaction however. the word "classical", as you know, refers to non-q version, it is how it was referred to in the reference but i don't have a problem ~~changing that to~~ deleting the word. i don't create articles with the idea of saying all there is to say about the subject (stubs), and at times, even then what i say may have errors (i am not flawless).

"The derivation I know comes from Reshetikhin and Frenkel, the first reference. (Vertex algebras do not generalize easily to the quantum affine case.) It's worth giving a simple explanation in the article."

i'll do some work on it over time

It was good that you left a message because i don't watch pages i create or edit. As a consequence, articles like quantum affine algebra are left unimproved for extended periods of time. Also, a little patience (& communication) with editors without expert knowledge of Wikipedia formats and methods is helpful. And, finally, respect and tolerance for others, that are experts but do things different form ourselves, is best. Thanks for your help. Henry Delforn (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Mathsci/WR

User:Mathsci/WR, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mathsci/WR and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mathsci/WR during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Ladnavfan (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so who is Ladnav fan a sock of besides Fachette.expert (talk · contribs)? The MFD was the editor's 14th edit. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ladnavfan. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The second suspected sock on this page within 24 hours. Mathsci (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

European cultures

You may be right. But i am too involved at this point - and you know, my original comment (and restoration of deleted material) was meant to help dab and dinkytown resolve their conflict. Maybe dab will come through with some quick research ... Are you going to pos to AN/I? Do you know some uninvolved admins who can go over how things unfolded? I* hate seeing anyone (unless they are clear DEs) blocked; I'd rather see people identify areas whee research is needed and then - do the research! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mathsci. Thanks for the note on the ANI discussion. Rather than get into that mess, I went and did some more research on the subject. I'm not the most active editor, but when I contribute, I try to make sure what I'm adding is worth while. However, as a rule, I avoid editing semi-protected pages. Please take a look at the sources I've put up on the talk page. I think there is enough there to end this dispute, it just needs to be worked into the article. Thanks, —Aryaman (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. What you found before looked good (as I already commented on the talk page). I'll take a look at the newer stuff when I have time. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I did a rough rewrite of the section and put it up on the talkpage. If we can form some consensus behind it, I'll put it up on the main page so people can focus on improving the section with additional relevant information. Thanks, —Aryaman (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Compaint via ANI

Hello, Mathsci. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.