# User talk:Michael Hardy

Jump to navigation Jump to search
 This user is one of the 40 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

## Sieve of Nicholls

Where would you recommend I look to publishing the results of this work?

I appreciate the distinction between referencing peer reviewed content, and being peer reviewed content.

Is there a reason why the wikipedia engine hasn't been cloned to facilitate the publishing of original material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjnicholls44 (talkcontribs) 16:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't thought about a wiki for original research. There are various journals of number theory and there are journals that accept papers in many areas of mathematics, including number theory. But if you want to put it on a web site without going through a full refereeing process, you could try this one. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

## Google Australia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Google Australia. Since you had some involvement with the Google Australia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 06:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

## Cayley's sextic

Hi Michael, nearly 10 years since you taught me that Wikipedia was case sensitive! Thanks for your typography on Cayley's sextic. There is no need to to change "date" to "year" in citations, unless harvnb is being used, and probably not even then. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

## Math Overflow

Michael, do you know if MO or MO Meta have any kind of private message system, or a way for logged in contributors to contact other contributors by email? I don't an account there so I can't access all of its features, so I can't tell if something like that exists without enrolling. Of course in many cases it's possible to locate the person's contact info with web searches, but not always. Thanks. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no such system last time I checked. That was a couple of years ago. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheppard's correction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estimation (statistics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

## Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Chords.svg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

## Statistical population / time series

Dear Michael, I saw your removal on time series in the article of statistical population. You're right that time series will mostly concern sample data. But there may be exceptions too. For example, take the time series of the number of soldiers in the Roman Empire by January 1st of every year, up to its fall in the year 476. That's definitely population data. (Just for info, this time series text is not original text of myself, it's something that I moved away from the article on Statistics (too much detail there) to the Statistical population article. But at least I can defend the possibility of the text.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

## A historical perspective on moment in physics and mathematics

I have posted a comment in your article/discussion on 'moment'. Please consider my request to elaborate the historical perspective on the issue. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

## Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

## Cleanup of a page

Dear Michael, it seems to me that in Granger causality, the subsections after Granger causality#Reconstructing a sample network are merely describing the detailed experimental procedure of one of the papers. Should I delete it? I hesitate, mainly because it is a big chuck of text (unsourced though). (I have found you because of your edits on anohter article.) gratefully, Taha (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

## AfD page moves

You should not be moving the AfD page or the nominated page while it's being discussed; it causes various problems, such as the bot thinking it's not been added to the logs and re-added. If you think it's a notable topic under another title then propose that in the discussion. Or wait until after the AfD is closed to move it or propose a move if it's controversial.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

## an essay

Hi Michael,

A while back (a year or two?) you spearheaded an attempt to write a promotional essay aimed at getting mathematicians interested in editing on Wikipedia. I know that the effort didn't get very far but I do remember that there were some suggestions for what should be in the essay. I was wondering if you could point me to that material as I have been asked to write such an article for an MAA publication and would like to include any of the ideas that were brought up at the time. Thanks. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find it. For some reason I didn't like the direction it took. I had thought of writing such a thing myself and my version would have been different from what was being suggested. Who asked you to write the article? AMS Notices? The Monthly? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ivars Peterson (current publication director of the MAA) asked me to submit an article. No specific MAA magazine was mentioned, but there are several that would be appropriate. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Monthly article draft: Wikipedia for mathematicians Michael Hardy (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

## Thanks

Michael, thank you for your edit of "ell" in Zhao Youqin's p algorithm which makes a formular much more readable than "l", which looks like "one" --Gisling (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

## Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constructability, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constructibility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

## affine space

Of course people are confused by the intuitive "explanation". That is why it should be rewritten, by someone who actually knows what a vector space is in mathematics, and is not still rooted in some crude notion of position vectors as taught by bad high school teachers (since those are the only kind of vector for which one would usually talk of an "origin" RQG (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

I am a mathematician and I know what a vector space is. John Baez is a mathematical physicist who is highly respected by mathematicians as an expository writer on abstruse concepts and quite prolific in his writing on such things. In this blog posting you see him saying
"An affine space is like a vector space that has forgotten its origin."
I don't think that your understanding of the matter is superior to mine or to his. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

In mathematics, appeals to authority are merely a sign of lack of understanding, especially when the authority is known for glib remarks lacking in substance. I will agree that Baez is a better mathematician than you. I understand you are a statistician with a minor in maths at a university of no particular note, and that you think is as good as a first in mathematics from Cambridge. At least Boris Tsirelson understands that A cannot be a vector space without defining more structure, so do not make claims which you have already demonstrated false. RQG (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not raise the issue of academic degrees. And you are becoming rude and writing imbecilic nonsense. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@RQG, I have explained at talk:affine space what I suspect is your principal misunderstanding of the mathematics involved. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for rudeness, but I think your assessment of my level of ability was also rude. I have responded to your comment on my talk space. John did point out that his description should immediately be made precise, which is certainly true and which is a major reason I have been advocating revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talkcontribs) 06:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

## Reviewing Interior reconstruction

I am helping to encourage editors to improve articles to which they have edited or created recently. In regard to the article: Interior reconstruction, the following assessment has been placed on the page:

Feel free to remove this post from this talk page if you would like. Since you have shown an interest in this article's improvement I thought you might like to have this information.

Regards,

bpage (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

## IP editor

Hello. An IP editor (71.82.112.140) has been adding a lot of wrong wikilinks to articles related to mathematics and physics during the past few days. They clearly have no idea what they are doing and they keep doing so despite all the talk-page warnings by other editors. I think this is a highly actionable case. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

## Hoax??

Why did you think that Amelia Bedelia (book) might have been a hoax? The linked article clearly mentions an addition to the article Amelia Bedelia, not the book.-- 19:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

## Quantum master equation

Thank you for pointing out my capitalization error, I will be more careful in the future. However, the link you redirected quantum master equation to is quite inappropriate. That article provides the quantum master equation FOR "an even degree element W of a Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra" ... it's not the article on "quantum master equations". In fact, The Batalin-Vilkovisky is a bizarre area for the application of a quantum master equation: a highly esoteric subject that only briefly overlaps with the use of quantum master equations in theory, while quantum master equations are more typically used in the study of open quantum systems. Until a real article is made for quantum master equation a more appropriate link would be to http://www.quantiki.org/wiki/Master_equation or to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_quantum_system .. but really the only place it should truly be redirected is to an article dedicated to the subject itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Universe (talkcontribs) 11:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're quite wrong. I redirected Quantum Master Equation (with capital initial letters) to quantum master equation (with lower-case initial letters). I never redirected anything to Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra. Someone else redirected quantum master equation (with lower-case letters) to that page. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

## PCA page edits

Hi Michael. I recently had to do a PCA, and found it hard to gain intuition into the process from the wikipedia page, or from other online sources. I added an Intuition section to the principal component analysis page, and would appreciate if you could look it over. It's not very good, as I don't really understand PCA that well, but I thought starting an Intution section would be helpful to laymen.Potnisanish (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

## Please see Dao's theorem

I found you long time, now I see you at here. How are you? You remmember me? [You already help me at here]

I wrote Dao's theorem based on some articles, these are notable theorem and generalization of some famous theorem. I posted them since 28 to now(20 days) but not keep and not delete. Please help me read detail and give your comment keep or delete. Please see Dao's theorem. Thank to You very much.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

## Amedeo Modigliani

You can't change the file names -because the pictures broke. Hafspajen (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to add some context here. I have no idea at all what you're talking about. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael, you changed the punctuation in the Gallery in this article, (and probably in others too) , see Modigliani. You can't change the punctuation on an image file name. If you do, you broke the image. See how the gallery looks here in the article.

Now that was reverted by some alert user, here - but think about the galleries, promise? Cheeers, and happy editing. Hafspajen (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Cantor's first uncountability proof

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cantor's first uncountability proof you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carabinieri -- Carabinieri (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

## Draft:3D printer extruder

Thanks for the edits on this page. I have actually created a article out of this draft and I am not able to figure out how to delete this page. The pages are Draft:3D_printer_extruder and 3D_Printer_Extruder. Please look into this and suggest what should I do.

Priybrat (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

## Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Michael Hardy. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

## issues :Global Cascading Model

Qing Jin (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Hi, Michael: Thank you for your comment on the global Cascading Model, you said I should give some new links to the article, here are some links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociological_theory_of_diffusion in this page, it mentioned a little bit about the model, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_contagion is highly relevant with the topic. So What I should do with that ?

## Speedy deletion nomination of File:Notation.pdf

A tag has been placed on File:Notation.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Reticulated Spline (tc) 23:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

## Move request

Can you move The Man Who Sold the World (song) to The Man Who Sold the World? Because the title track rather than the album of the same name. 183.171.182.22 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Cantor's first uncountability proof

The article Cantor's first uncountability proof you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cantor's first uncountability proof for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

## Wikimedia genealogy project

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

## Cantor's uncountability proofs

In your edit summary at Georg Cantor, you said "I do not think his first proof is more complex or less elegant than the original. I think the original is more elegant." I think the 2nd sentence contradicts the first one. In my opinion, the 1891 proof is easier to understand than the 1874 proof. Did you mean that, too? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant I don't think the 1874 proof is more complex or less elegant than the 1891 proof. Nor do I think it's harder to understand; I think if you're finding it hard to understand, then maybe a clearer explanation should be written. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, while neither is terribly difficult, the 1891 proof is certainly shorter. In that sense it's easier to understand.
The great merit of the 1874 proof is that it gives better insight into the behavior of the reals specifically. Descriptive set theorists are likely to like it better, because it's a baby example of the things they do. That's my background, and I like the 1874 proof better. But if a combinatorial set theorist liked the 1891 proof better, I'd have to reluctantly understand. --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
ok..... Michael Hardy (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

## Initial-stress-derived nouns

I agree with your restoration of the list of initial-stress-derived nouns. There is a way to handle this on Wiktionary: to create a category under wikt:Category:English terms by etymology. I'm not doing it myself at the moment — too laborious — but there's an idea. — Eru·tuon 05:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Or an article could be added here on Wikipedia and linked from Lists of etymologies. — Eru·tuon 05:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Do these words actually share a common etymology not shared by other words? Even if they do, that's not the essence of the matter. This is about a relationship between pronunciation and the meaning of the word, not about etymology. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Etymology is not only concerned with what original word something is derived from, but also what sound changes it has gone through in its derivation from that word. In this case, initial-stress-derived nouns are derived from a verb by a process of stress movement (or at least appear that way as we see them today), so they form an etymological category not by the word they come from, but by the process that formed them. (Check out the Wiktionary link above: there are several subcategories concerned with sound changes: apheresis, apocope, syncope.) — Eru·tuon 19:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

## Re. Malware

Out of sheer curiosity, why did you title the message on my talk page "malware"? That seems a bit odd for a wikicoding mistake I made almost two years ago. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 09:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Because what you did had very bad effects: It made everything that was posted below your posting invisible. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

## Thanks for correcting my error

I left this on my TALK page.

You are absolutely correct, Michael. I intended to get rid of that reference, but somehow restored it. I had written essentially the same thing as you in the TALK section of the article as follows: Admittance to the Union
Reverted edit. California was admitted to the Union 11 years before the Civil War. Activist (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Added unmentioned presence of Russian coastal colony north of San Francisco Bay, eventually purchased by Sutter. Activist (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Whoever originally put that in there may have also been the one who claimed that there was little European interest in Northern California, so I added the part about the Russian colonies, which also prompted me to clean up the insufficient info on Ft. Ross, Tomales Bay, etc. In fact, until trying to clean that up, I had no idea that Sutter bought out the Russian colony and that his influence was substantially wider than commonly portrayed. The problem seems to be that a great deal of info in the Sacramento article was clumsily written (probably by an editor whose first language was not English) or inaccurate, so I made an attempt to clean up the lead paragraphs, but didn't have the time to go through it all. I noted that it needs considerable work. Thank you for straightening out my inadvertent error. Activist (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Activist (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

## Models and Methods of Quantitative Economics - QEM

You recently moved Models and Methods of Quantitative Economics - QEM while it is up for deletion. Please see the notes at WP:EDITATAFD re moving a page while it is under discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

## line house

I have no idea, had not really heard the term before but I definitely know a few places to look. Thanks for the nudge. Jessamyn (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

## Talk:Cantor's first uncountability proof/GA1

Michael Hardy, I was wondering whether you were still interested in pursuing this nomination. You last edited the article on December 19, and posted to the review page on December 24, over a month ago. Please stop by the review at your first opportunity. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I'll be back to do further edits, but other things in my life have been occupying my attention, so I may work at a leisurely pace. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Cantor's first uncountability proof

The article Cantor's first uncountability proof you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cantor's first uncountability proof for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

## About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote

Hi Michael Hardy. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (75th to be exact), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

## Content / editing

You said you are annoyed by my articles. Sorry. I do not write TeX by hand. I convert it from TeXmacs/pandoc. Writing TeX by hand would be a huge mess. Apparently, the conversion does not output TeX up to the standards of wikipedia. I will not be fiddling with TeX by hand simply because that is a waste of time. Therefore, I will stop writing anymore articles. If my 2 or 3 articles are too much trouble for any editors to fix to wikipedia standards, then they can be deleted. Good luck. Twy2008 (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I could also point out that your replacement of \mathrm{sin} with \sin has effectively vandalized the "Quaternion rotation biradial" article. At least one of the replacements didn't format correctly at Identities:_Product_ba_and_rotation_operator_R. Btw, not every function in mathematics has a specific LaTeX command like \sin, so in general, a function probably has to be written just the way I did it. I'm not sure it is my role anymore to try to fix this vandalism, or argue this any further. Twy2008 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not say I was annoyed by your articles. I was annoyed by TeX code that was far more complicated than necessary. I have good news on one point: You could probably learn what you need to know of "TeX" for these articles in fifteen minutes. To call in "TeX" is quite exaggerated; it is only a system of coding mathematical notation nearly identical to what TeX uses. There's no need to actually learn TeX in order to use it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

## Smooth minimum

Hi there, I noticed that you redirected Smooth minimum to itself, creating a redirect loop. I changed it to Smooth maximum because that seemed to be your intention, but I just wanted to check that that page is the intended destination. spiderjerky (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

## Celebrity deaths listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Celebrity deaths. Since you had some involvement with the Celebrity deaths redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serpentine shape, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serpentine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

## Witch?

Hi Michael, I've noticed that you just decapitalized "witch" in Witch of Agnesi in all instances. I thought that as a proper name of a specific curve it should be capitalized. I have seen some examples in the literature where witch was not capitalized, but the majority in my experience have capitalized it. Why did you think it shouldn't be capitalized. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally tends to be fairly sparing in its use of capitals. Actually I think in this case a capital might not be unreasonable because "witch" in this instance is not a common noun; one does not speak of various sorts of generic "witches", of which is is just one. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

## Implicit curve

Hi, I just created a new article on implicit curves which is essentially a translation of the German WIKI (implizite Kurve) I created some weeks ago. Please could You or some one else check the language. It may not meet the WIKI-standard. Thank You !--Ag2gaeh (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

## Proof by contradiction

Michael, I don't see why you deleted one of the examples in the page Proof by contradiction. There wasn't really anything wrong with that example (summary: if there is a largest prime p, take any prime factor of p! + 1, that will be larger, contradiction, so there isn't a largest prime p). MvH (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)MvH

I deleted that because it is a very very bad example. I explain why here. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

## The 26 sporadic simple group articles

Hi Michael - I notice that you have been working on several of the individual sporadic simple group articles. I saw your change to Thompson sporadic group with the comment, "In group theory obviously does not tell non-mathematicians that mathematics is what this is about" and applied your same fix to the other 25 sporadic group articles (plus a few more with the same defect). Thanks. Since you may be interested, I invite you to look at User:Foobarnix/Revision and cleanups to individual sporadic group articles. We can talk more on that page if you like. --Foobarnix (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

## Protecting method of indivisibles

Hi Michael,

Recently there has been drive-by vandalism by IPs at a number of pages including Galileo Galilei, The Assayer, and Method of indivisibles. Could you "protect" the latter page so only autoconfirmed users can edit it? Tkuvho (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) As I was writing the previous message, the same IP blanked The Assayer. I would much appreciate if you could "protect" that one, as well. Tkuvho (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

## Parse error on Modulo page

I noticed you made [this change] on the modulo page. It appears to now be producing an parse error, something like "Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng)". Just thought you might want to know. - Cygnosis (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

## The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

## Cantor's first uncountability proof

Hi Michael,

Sorry that I couldn't participate in the GA Review for Cantor's first uncountability proof. I didn't have the time then. Looking over what was said, I agree with SpinningSpark that the article needs a fundamental restructuring. I now have the time to work on a rewrite. I've already written a new lead (see User:RJGray/Cantor draft1) that handles SpinningSpark's point about whether the disagreement about Cantor's proof is a decades long dispute. I plan to work through SpinningSpark's excellent feedback. I really appreciate the time and thought he put into it. I also appreciate JohnBlackburn's feedback.

The new lead is also a "real lead": it leads into what is covered in the Wikipedia article including Cantor's development of his ideas (which SpinningSpark pointed out was not in the old lead). You may notice that I'm switching the order of the sections now titled "The development of Cantor's ideas" and "The disagreement about Cantor's proof." Doing this not only makes the lead flow better but also helps me handle some of feedback.

So I'm prepared to do a rewrite, but I need to know if anyone else is working on one, and whether the new lead is going in the right direction. I should warn you that my rewrite will take a bit of time. I believe that we can create an article that will attain Good Article status, but for me, good writing takes time and feedback. I'll need some feedback after I finish each section. By the way, I'm curious: do many people read the article as compared to other math or math history articles (the article is really a mix of the two), or is it not read much, or is there no way to know this?

Thanks again for nominating the article for Good Article, thanks for the edits you made to make it a better article, and thanks for attempting to bring it up to GA standards. Unfortunately, the writing I did in the article was not close enough to GA standards for you to succeed without a major rewrite. I'm sorry that my writing wasn't closer to GA standards, but I'm not surprised since it was my first contribution to Wikipedia and I didn't know the rules. RJGray (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this page. It reports that as of through the 10th of August, the article has been viewd 439 times during August. It was viewed 1208 times in July. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

I've just completed a draft of the first three sections of my rewrite (see User:RJGray/Cantor draft1). They were fairly straightforward sections to write; I know the next two will be harder. I've kept all the math in the first two sections (the current article mixes math with the discussion about the nature of the proof). This along with the math I added tries to address the complaint about not that much math in a math article. Now the readers who just want to read math only have to read the first two (or three) sections; the third section is a bridging section. Of course, the article as a whole contains both math and math history, but now it's more cleanly separated. Also, I've taken the two proofs out of the footnotes, used the "math proof" template, and motivated and rewrote the proof about intervals excluding leading terms (in fact, this proof motivated me to simplify Cantor's proof).

I've simplified Cantor's proof by using open intervals, which also simplifies the case diagrams, the proof about excluding leading terms, etc. There will be 3 diagrams, one for each case in the construction. However, the case diagrams are not done yet. I only recently contacted someone who is doing them for the article. The case 1 diagram should handle SpinningSpark's observation about someone getting confused because it deals with a finite interval. Geometrically, it's obvious that in case 1, c is different from xn. I look forward to your comments.

On another subject: Euclid's proof that there are infinitely many primes. I remember that after you sent me the excellent article that you and Catherine Woodgold wrote, I traced the proof-by-contradiction back to Dirichlet. While reading up on the history of non-constructive proofs, I came across the following that states that Dirichlet was the first to use non-constructive existence proofs and that he used them in his number theory investigations: History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics, vol. 11, p. 249. Here's footnote 27, which references Klein's book: History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics, vol. 11, p. 257. Also, you may want to look at the proof in Wikibooks: Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes. It states "Euclid's proof works by contradiction."

By the way, do you know why Wikipedia removed the MathJax option from the Appearance tab in Preferences? Also, MathML is giving me blanks (when printing) now. It was working for me about a week ago but it doesn't anymore. At least, PNG still works. Thanks, RJGray (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed those changes. Maybe one of the regulars at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics would know about this. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I've updated User:RJGray/Cantor draft1. Here's the major changes: Added section "The disagreement about Cantor's proof"; added Jochen Burghardt's case diagrams; separated notes and references. The case diagrams are in the section "The Proofs". Please send me any suggestions or corrections to the article (or you can make your changes directly on the draft). Thanks, RJGray (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I have now finished my first version of my first draft: it's in User:RJGray/Cantor draft1. I'm still actively working on it. I'm improving some of the writing. I've recently shortened my original "Dedekind's contribution" section and I'm looking for other places to shorten. I also need to check my links and do some miscellaneous tasks. I suspect it will take me about a month; I'd like to get it done by the end of the year. Any feedback would be appreciated. By the way, I'll be away from computers for about a week. RJGray (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll look at the draft. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I've now finished my second draft: it's in User:RJGray/Cantor draft2. Did quite a bit of editing throughout. The biggest changes are: I redid parts of two proofs in "The Proofs" section (the proof of Cantor's second theorem and the dense sequence proof), and I added a short legacy section. I added this section for at least two reasons: ending with Dedekind's contributions leaves one with a negative feeling about Cantor—the legacy section ends more positively by telling how Cantor's contributions affected mathematics. Also, it points out the dual legacy of the article: the concept of countability and the uncountability theorem. The last paragraph combines the two with Skolem's insight into the uncountability theorem.

This second draft should be very close to the final draft. I made a few small changes today and probably will do some more small changes here and there. Also, I have some miscellaneous tasks to do (like making a final check of all my references). It should take a few more weeks; I'd still like to get it done by the end of the year.

By the way, is the plan to just post the article or let some editor make comments beforehand? Thanks, RJGray (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michael, Just want to clarify my last sentence about "some editor": I know that you are an editor, and your comments are always welcome. I was wondering about one of the editors involved in the GA Review. Thanks, RJGray (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

## Titles with m-dash, outside of mathematics

I was going to move the California Legislature Session pages that have an en dash in them to not have one. I could not imagine why anyone would think this is correct? :-) Can you explain why "2015-16" should have an en dash? Separate from mathematics (which I am not sure of) does anyone suggest that titles should have en dashes in them? It makes it hard for tools, such as one I am writing, to deal with the URLs.

Ok. It turns out that I am wrong about this. I checked the MOS.

But. It says that for any page which uses this in its title, there should be a re-direct for the page with a hyphen. See MOS:DASH. Do you have any suggestion for how this can be handled. Since you did the re-naming to change the titles to use an en dash, can you create the re-direct pages? It would be appreciated.

RayKiddy (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It is standard that ranges of years and ranges of pages use en-dashes (not em-dashes). Thus an article's initial sentence says:
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955.
The date of birth and date of death are separated by an en-dash. If it had given onlly the years, it would have said Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (1874–1965), with no blank space before and after the en-dash. Similarly, ranges of pages use en-dashes, thus: The Gathering Storm pp. 170–71. If a hyphen rather than an en-dash had appeared there, I would have changed it to an en-dash with an edit summary saying I'm correcting a punctuation error. It's used in things like this: "Butterfly fossils date to the mid Eocene epoch, 40–50 million years ago." Note the en-dash in "40–50". It is also used in physical measurements, e.g. 2.5–3 kg, and with letters of the alphabet, e.g. A–F.
If I'm not mistaken, all this is codified in WP:MOS. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

My issue is not with en dashes in general. I was just finding it inconvenient that the en dash appeared in the title. It makes dealing with the URL for the article more complicated. And I do think that, even if it is correct to use an en dash in the title, there needs to be a re-direct page so that people searching for "2015 *hyphen* 16" find a page even if its title contains "2015 *en dash 16". But I can create these re-directs. Sorry if my comments seemed grumpy and thanks for the reply. Cheers. RayKiddy (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear there was no such redirect. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

## Reference errors on 20 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

## Vereinigtes Königreich listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vereinigtes Königreich. Since you had some involvement with the Vereinigtes Königreich redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

## Slavery in Vermont

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Slavery in Vermont, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://slavenorth.com/vermont.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slavery in Vermont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Charles II. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

## Reference desks

I am rather surprised that an administrator should think it appropriate to ask for legal advice on a Wikipedia reference desk. Since it isn't, and since the header at the top of each desk makes this entirely clear, I have removed your post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

## Replacing math with ad hoc markup

Dear Michael,

Your mathematical contributions over the years are appreciated. However, you persist with replacing valid low-complexity TeX math markup with ad hoc presentation markup such as bold and italic sequences. Could you please reconsider this? In modern browsers math markup is rendered well via a choice of MathML, CSS or images, whereas ad hoc markup seldom matches the surrounding text well – if you want to see more starkly what I mean, then try increasing the font size or specifying another typeface, as many people with impaired vision have to do. Moreover, screen readers need to parse the complex sequence of ad hoc markup, instead of simply using the contents of the math tag as-is. The sole blind student I have taught certainly preferred the raw TeX of "markup-math x^n + y^n = z^n markup-math-end" to having to follow sequences like "bold-x-unbold superscript-n-close-superscript plus bold-y-unbold superscript-n-close-superscript = bold-z-unbold superscript-n-close-superscript". If you have a cogent reason why ad hoc markup is still to be preferred in 2015, then please share it: I remain open to being convinced, but currently I have no choice but to frown upon your wide-ranging replacements of semantically meaningful math markup with ad hoc presentation markup. Ott2 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

## Economic Geology (journal)

Please add references.-- 14:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

## Request for input

Should the Combination tone article you edited, which includes a section on Resultant tones include information about the use of resultant tones in heavy metal music power chords? For talk page discussion, see here.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 02:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

## Laabs

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about Gustav Laabs. Any help is appreciated and I will of course add you to the DYK nom for the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hugh Lowell Montgomery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh Montgomery. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

## Program for Research In Mathematics, Engineering and Science (PRIMES)

As a frequent contributor to Wikipedia in the area of mathematics, I kindly request you to examine, and perhaps, to contribute to the discussion regarding the notability of the article on Program for Research In Mathematics, Engineering and Science (PRIMES). It has been marked for deletion, and your opinion is welcomed. Dodecahedronic (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

## 14th state listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 14th state. Since you had some involvement with the 14th state redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

## Invite to the Minneapolis Institute of Art

Minneapolis Institute of Art edit-a-thon
• Date: Saturday, October 24, 2015, 12pm–4pm
• Location: Minneapolis Institute of Art Friends Community Room, 2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis
• Sponsor: Minneapolis Institute of Art
You are invited to attend an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon at Minneapolis Institute of Art which will be held on Saturday, October 24, 2015. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to women artists.
--gobonobo + c 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lars-Erik Persson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inequality. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

## A few years ago

Hey for some reason I just felt like I could drop back by in a few years and you'd be still plugging along. You have invested so much work. I wanted to say that I was a direct beneficiary of some high level math theory discussion a few years back we had and that I was greatly impacted by the ability to interact with sharp minds like yourself here on Wikipedia where there's all types of users with all types of knowledge. For that I'm grateful and it was specifically about physics and a weird relationship between one equation and a number-theory relationship which nobody had yet pieced the two together.

When my exploratory question lead you to arrive at the same conclusion I was on the verge of making myself, it completely transformed me as a math hobbyist and into a math addict, haha. Well, just wanted to share your random impact on my life a few years ago which has led me to a lifelong hobbyist involvement in math and physics where I have an incurable obsession of ascribing causality to the parameters of various math equations which govern the laws of our physical universe. Cheers! 72.196.99.114 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Michael Hardy (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

## Virginia Tech Project Invite

 As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

## Season's Greetings

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

## Reference errors on 22 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

## esperanto

Saluton, mi ankau estas esperantisto, kiel vi fartas? --Binaryhazard (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Bone, sed cxi tie mi ne multe skribas en Esperanto. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

## cis function

Hi Michael,

I have restored some old contents on the cis() function you contributed to the List of trigonometric identities back in 2003 and 2006. I stumbled upon cis(x) being mentioned in several related articles but I never found a "central" discussion of its usage from the viewpoint of the function itself, therefore I felt we need a separate article on it: cis (mathematics), as was suggested in one of the past discussions. The article is still unsourced and it needs some copy-editing for a better logical flow and to remove some redundancy. Since you were the original contributor I thought I'd let you know. It would be great if you could help out with some references etc. Thanks and greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

## mbox

What do you make of this? 20:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

)He tuned it up the next day with 12 consecutive edits.) -A876 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

## Reference errors on 26 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of numbers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fraction. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

## Invite to an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center

The Loft Literary Center edit-a-thon
• Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016, 6–8pm
• Location: Loft Literary Center, 1011 S Washington Ave, Room 203, Minneapolis
• Sponsor: The Loft Literary Center
Hello Michael Hardy! You are invited to attend an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center which will be held on Thursday, February 11, 2016. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to artists from marginalized communities. Please bring a laptop. Refreshments will be provided.
We have also recently formed a user group for Minnesota editors. If you would like to join, please add your name to our page on meta. Thank you, gobonobo + c 23:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

## Rewrite of "Cantor's first …" article is done

Hi Michael,

I've finished my final draft of the article, it's located at User:RJGray/Cantor draft3. It took me longer than expected partly because I keep seeing ways to improve my writing, and partly because I realized that the article had a big flaw: Namely, the article's title was "Cantor's first uncountability proof," but the last four sections had little or nothing to do with the proof. The last three section titles—"The influence of Weierstrass and Kronecker on Cantor's article," "Dedekind's contributions to Cantor's article," "The legacy of Cantor's article"—led me to realize that I've written a fairly comprehensive article about Cantor's article. I also realized that the editors that participate in the Good Article review may also think that the old name doesn't reflect the contents of the new article.

So I've changed its name to "Cantor's first set theory article" and rewrote the lead. Cantor's article is a well-known, often-cited, and much-discussed article so I think it deserves a Wikipedia article. I realize the change of title requires a redirect from the old title. I boldfaced the old article title Cantor's first uncountability proof in the first paragraph of the lead so that redirected readers will know they're at the right place.

The article is ready to post as soon as you are comfortable posting it. Please send me any recommendations you have for improving it. I just have one request about posting. Please tell me when you are going to post it. I have written a Thank You for the people who have helped me with the article. I would like to post it to the article's Talk page soon after you post the article.

Thank you for your patience in waiting for my rewrite. --RJGray (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

## Article name should start with "Cantor's"

Hi Michael,

Thanks for posting the article. However, the name should start with "Cantor's" like the old article. When I do searches for Cantor articles, I start typing in "Cantor" and not "Georg". I only put "Georg Cantor" because I was copying "Cantor's first uncountability proof" which starts that way. I'm willing to remove the "Georg" because I think it's more important that the title start with "Cantor's". Thanks, --RJGray (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Currently Cantor's first set theory article is a redirect page targetting Georg Cantor's first set theory article. If you either (1) enter "Cantor's first set theory article" in the search box or (2) link to "Cantor's first set theory article" from another article, you will be directed to Georg Cantor's first set theory article. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

## Thanks for your work on Cantor article; I have some concern about suggested move

Hi Michael,

Thank you very much for posting "Georg Cantor's first set theory article" and putting the redirects in. It's nice to see my work posted and know that some people are already reading it.

I have some concern about the suggested move to the title "On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers." Currently, there are only two of us arguing back and forth. Perhaps you may be interested in participating in this discussion. Thanks, RJGray (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

## Algebriac structure (redirect page)

A tag has been placed on Algebriac structure, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The redirect contains an error. Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Xx236: What is the "error" to which you refer? The typo in the page title? That was intended, for obvious reasons. If it is something else, then what? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
MH created that redirect page with incorrect format. (Xx236 should have fixed that error (in addition to tagging the page), much preferable over pointing it out.) I cannot determine whether the original incorrect redirect worked properly as a redirect, or just displayed a link. (I will not re-create the error there or elsewhere. I tried at WP Sandbox, but it apparently cannot simulate a redirect page.) MH contested the delete request (on the talk page). The next editor corrected the redirect error and re-tagged the page, as it remains today.
On redirect pages generally: A while ago, someone (possibly I) stupidly created a redirect article for one misspelled link in just one article. So I fixed the article and then tagged the orphan redirect page for deletion, for 3 damn-good reasons: The misspelling was unique; even Google could not find an instance; and the page should never have been created. None of that mattered! The cabal that day COULD NOT delete it! They were offended that I would even suggest it! If MH tomorrow begs "them" to delete the redirect page that he created, they simply won't. Notwithstanding Wikipedia's famous (or infamous) delete-o-maniacs, whose work inspires Deletionpedia and others, some parts of Wikipedia are embarrassingly write-only. (I don't know why undeletable redirect pages aren't abused more.) Anyway, marginally useful misspelling redirects (like this one) are even less likely to be deleted. Maybe "they" could set a threshold on the ratio of the incidence of the misspelling to the incidence of its correct spelling(s) that decides whether a misspelling redirect page is "encyclopedic". Let's test the idea for this case: Google hits (not guaranteed accurate) give "algebriac" ÷ "algebraic" ≈ 1/1058 and "algebriac structure" ÷ "algebraic structure" ≈ 1/3323. In conclusion, don't go ape adding misspelling redirects. There're sites for that (Google's (and others') natural typo correction), as well as Wikipeetia - The Misspelled Encyclopedia. (Wikipeetia article was deleted from Wikipedia twice, so Wikipeetia is not actually notable (here).) -A876 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

## Wells Fargo

Hi Michael Hardy, please see here for your requested Wells Fargo diagram. Anything else, let me know. XyZAn (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Maryna Viazovska

Hello Michael Hardy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Maryna Viazovska for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vinod 16:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Maryna Viazovska

Hello, Michael Hardy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Maryna Viazovska, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

## Nomination of Maryna Viazovska for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maryna Viazovska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryna Viazovska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ubiquity (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

## Need to look at GA Review that was on Talk page of Cantor's first uncountability proof

Hi Michael, I need access the GA Review that was on Talk page of Cantor's first uncountability proof. Unfortunately, it was not moved to the Talk page of Georg Cantor's first set theory article. Can it be recovered and added to the talk of the new article, or at least accessed via a link? I need it because a sentence of the new article's lead was deleted. The sentence that was deleted refers to the first two sections of the new article so I think the sentence needs to be improved or put back. I wrote the lead with the guidance of the GA Review and its references. So I need the GA Review to improve the sentence or justify its existence. Thanks, RJGray (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Does this link work for you? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks, RJGray (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

## Clean Monday

Michael, wanted to let you know I undid your revision on Clean Monday about movable feasts. The hyperlink you provided was to an article about an organization called Moveable Feast, not to the article about the Christian liturgical practice. I admit I was confused too what with the spelling variations. FYI because it can be rather a shock sometimes when someone "undoes" your work! Foreignshore (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You're mistaken: at the time I did that edit I changed the page titled moveable feast from a redirect to Moveable Feast (with a capital "F") by moving the page titled moveable feast (observance practice) to moveable feast (with a lower-case "f"). Hence moveable feast no longer redirects to Moveable Feast. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying; I must have undid the wrong edit. Looks like it works now! Foreignshore (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

## Unilateral page moves without engaging in discussion

In the future, please avoid performing unilateral page moves without engaging in discussion.

Please enlist feedback from our Wikipedia community via our WP:REQMOVE standard procedures.

Especially if you realize -- by the 2nd time -- that it is possible the page move could fall under potentially controversial moves.

Thank you for reading above,

Cirt (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The page you link to says this: "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." If I had expected a dispute I would have discussed the matter. My recent moves seems uncontroversial. The principal meaning of the word "giraffe" is a certain animal with a long neck, and if there's also an organization called "Giraffe", one would expect the article title Giraffe to be about the animal and Giraffe (organization) to be about the organization. To have an article titled Giraffe (animal) would be unreasonable, to say the least. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the first time. But the second (2nd) time, you should have sought out discussion through the Wikipedia community. In the future, please do not communicate solely by edit summaries during your reverting process. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
DIFF1 = 1 April 2016, and then again, with zero discussion the second time, in violation of WP:REQMOVE and WP:BRD at DIFF2 = 10 April 2016. — Cirt (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
In fact, it appeared from the edit summary that you may simply have initially overlooked the fact that in this case one of the meanings of the term is clearly primary. In WP:DISAMBIG one reads of "primary topics". Michael Hardy (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Different spellings. One ends in a lowercase word. The other ends in an uppercase word. No need for disambiguation. Before reverting, could have attempted discussion, on the article's talk page. Please do so in the future. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I think there should be a disambiguation page because the similarity is confusing. People who don't know which capitalization conventions should be followed on the particular occasion may enter search terms. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Easily solved by two hatnotes at top of each page. But I wish you'd stated as much this clearly much earlier, in discussion on the talk page. — Cirt (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

## Capital Letters

I didnt realize the issue with capital letters. Can you explain more. Are we only supposed to capitalize the first word? Mim.cis (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

## Some stroopwafels for you!

 You look hungry. Here, have some stroopwafels! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. (I didn't know I looked hungry!) Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

## Response rate (medicine)

Please write the page using reliable sources. The subject seems to be very serious.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone else will have to do that. I created the page because someone moved Response rate to Response rate (survey), leaving Response rate as a redirect, while saying the term is also used in medicine. There was at least one article linking to it that was about medicine. So I made Response rate into a disambiguation page and created a stubby new article. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

## Ailles rectangle

Thanks for pointing that out. I've uploaded a better version (although it's still a bit rough around the edges, I'm not that great with photoshop). --McGeddon (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

## Nomination of Intelligent Water Drops algorithm for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Intelligent Water Drops algorithm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Ruud 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Ancestral health

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

No indication of notability, or even being a cohesive subject. The title is a descriptive term encompassing subjects already covered, seems to violate WP:ELNO.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 20:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

All three links in the EL section are to websites advocating for what amounts to a paeolithic diet. So it runs up against 1, 5 and possibly 2. Also, I should point out that the article meets WP:A10 of the speedy deletion criteria. I'll lay off nominating it for a speedy for a week, so you can have time to add more info. 21:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
A10 is about a new article that duplicates an existing article, yet you do not specify any existing article that you think it duplicates. Tell me which one. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Removed A10. Dane2007 (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

## Your contributed article, Ancestral health

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Ancestral health. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Paleolithic diet. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Paleolithic diet – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. 22:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing good faith A10 as it is clearly not duplicating Paleolithic diet. Although diet is a large part of ancestral health, it is not the only part of it, per the sources provided. I would suggest you review the sources in the article more closely prior to nominating. Dane2007 (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

## ANI

Michael Hardy, this is a routine content dispute. You wrote a very mediocre article that does not cite any independent, reliable sources, and that got called to your attention. Instead of improving the article, you nitpicked the comments of the other editor. Maybe this is because there appear to be no independent, reliable sources about your topic, and you are defensive about that. Yeah, the other editor could have been more friendly but so could you. My suggestion is, why don't you go upgrade your mediocre article into something worthy of the encyclopedia, if that is possible, instead of bickering? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen: What in the world do you mean by "independent reliable sources"? Are you saying the sources I cited cannot think independently? What was "called to [my] attention" was that the pages I linked to exist for the purpose of selling something (patently false; it's a non-profit organization of professors who do research in that area) and that it's a duplicate of another article (and at first he refused to say _which_ other article, and when he did say what it was, it was obvious that it's not within light-years of being a duplicate). I wrote a _stub_ article and acknowledged that it was a stub. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

## August 2016

Hello, I'm Dane2007. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Tarage. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Dane2007 (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

On that note, do not edit my talk page again. I'll steer clear of yours as well. --Tarage (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I must say that was only the second Wikipedian I've encountered who asserted that I should never dispute the assertions of someone who tells me I'm wrong, since telling me I'm wrong is doing me a favor. And the first one was the one I encountered only a few hours earlier. And here I speak as one who's edited Wikipedia pages every day since 2002. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that there are a LOT of feelings regarding this particular incident running between all the parties who became involved. While there undoubtedly was feedback from all parties that was excessive or harsh, I think it's a perfect learning experience that sometimes a step back is needed to work towards a resolution. Remember - Wikipedians main focus is content integrity and just because one or two disagrees it doesn't mean the entire community does. This situation would've best been handled through dispute resolution. I hope you continue to contribute Michael Hardy. Dane2007 (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael, can you please cool it with the sarcasm? Dane2007, you need to adjust your personal attacks filter a little higher please. --NeilN talk to me 06:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for the feedback! I will definitely review WP:NPA myself, I had second guessed myself on that one already. Dane2007 (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

_My_ personal attacks? In daily editing of Wikipedia pages for fourteen years I've never before encountered anyone on Wikipedia who explicitly said I was forbidden to express disagreement with him because he was doing me a favor by pointing out what he said were my errors. I was willing to communicate and discuss the issues; he told me I was forbidden to communicate but should simply obey him. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You know that's not what he said. Your overblown exaggeration is unhelpful. --NeilN talk to me 06:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That is indeed what he said. He is a hard-core bully. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, please provide the diff where he explicitly stated you were "forbidden to express disagreement with him" --NeilN talk to me 06:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This is bullying. He is angry that I would do anything so abusive as to say he was mistaken about factual assertions. I was willing to communicate about issues; he was unwilling. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's rather snappish. But it's not what you claimed he said. Probably the best thing for all is to move on. You might want to respond at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Ancestral_health. --NeilN talk to me 06:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

## ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#This is an admin.21

As you are now blocked from editing, if there's anything you wish to say at that ANI report, please post it here and I'll be happy to copy it over for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

## August 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• I have blocked you for a short while for your continuing personal attacks against User:MjolnirPants, above (which I hadn't seen when I started that section at ANI). Your behavior is especially disgraceful as you're an admin, and if it continues after your block expires then you should expect to be blocked for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• There's a growing consensus at ANI that my block was excessive, and so I have unblocked and I withdraw it unconditionally - and I have annotated the block log accordingly. But please try to remember the expectations of being an admin, as described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Expectations of adminship, especially the part that says "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" (though I know it can be hard sometimes, especially if others are a little sharp with us in their interactions). Also, as you were one of the very earliest admins and may not be familiar with current practice, please familiarize yourself with the purpose of the various noticeboards (such as WP:ANI), and with the WP:CSD and WP:PROD policies (and how to respond to them). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

## Would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop?

Michael, considering the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#This is an admin!, would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop? I am not at this time expressing any opinion as to the merits of the arguments being made at ANI because I have not personally examined the editing history. I am simply posting this because as far as I can tell nobody has ever asked you whether you actually want to be a Wikipedia administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Does your inquiry or the thing you're proposing serve some purpose? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
That was harsh. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 21:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. I asked a question, seeking information. I am wondering what purpose Guy Macon is attempting to serve. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
You evaded the question with another question and then had the unmitigated gall to say "I asked a question, seeking information", ignoring the fact that I had just asked a question, seeking information, which you refused to answer. I already told you what my purpose was. It is clearly explained in same paragraph as the question I asked. Evasion noted. Prior to this exchange, I was leaning towards opposing those who are calling for your resignation as an administrator. Now that I have seen how you respond to a good-faith question from someone who goes out of his way to not pass judgement without first examining the evidence, I am definitely leaning the other way. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Am I under some obligation to answer your question? I had not heard that anyone had called for my resignation, and it would be useful to know your purpose in considering what answer to give. I am surprised by your anger. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• I stand by my accusation against MjolnirPants.
I find it gratuitously disrespectful to be told that my statement is a "personal attack" rather than an accusation. And what have you to say about MjolnirPants's personal attack on me, against which I defended myself? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I have no opinion on that question because I have not examined the evidence. Will I be getting an answer to the specific question I asked above any time soon? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Michael Hardy, the best thing you could do right now is resign as an admin. You're clearly very out-of-touch with current practices at the moment, and, without trying to offend you, I don't trust someone who doesn't understand basic behavioral guidelines enough to be an admin. Omni Flames (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer that Michael not resign. The administratura has gone the wrong way in many ways; Michael could provide some needed balance. However I do agree he should try waiting overnight before responding more often (as should many of us). --Trovatore (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
However you feel about the current administratura, Trovatore, I find an admin who does not seem to understand WP:V (with its emphasis on reliable sources)—especially after so many years—alarming. Miniapolis 14:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you find something among my many many contributions to Wikipedia that give you cause to doubt that I understand what reliable sources are? I think some confusion is going on here: In an article about an organization, in some circumstances people may was sources independent of that organization. The confusion begins when people mistakenly thought that the ancestral health article was supposed to be about an organization. It was not. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
We get that. The issue is whether the subject of "ancestral health" is independently notable, and consensus (which you seem to have difficulty accepting) indicates that at this time it is not. Miniapolis 17:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"We"? Does the user account called "Miniapolis" speak for more than one person? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not; I was speaking for everyone you seem to think is ganging up on you. I'm gobsmacked at your argumentativeness, and am done replying to you; this is a timesink. Miniapolis 22:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You can't speak for others. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

## Color me puzzled

Frankly, I'm not sure that we have ever interacted. Despite that, I am very aware of your enormous contributions to the mathematical articles. I have a math background but one reason you have probably never seen me contribute to the math articles is that I felt the general subject was in good hands partly because of you and decided to contribute to other areas. I was surprised to see your name pop up in an odd incident at ANI. Please forgive me if this is intruding but is everything okay? It just doesn't seem quite right.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

## Nomination of Ancestral health for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ancestral health is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

## Drop the stick

Michael, I have been following the ANI report you initially filed and its subsection by Boing. Right now, it is in your best interest to drop the stick and move on. You have been told plenty of times that what Mjoir (sp?) was not bullying or a personal attack. This message just shows that you clearly haven't moved on and are just continuously pursing the same argument. Enough is enough. Admins and other experienced editors have implied this. Now, please stop with these accusations and move on already. I second with everything Boing has said from the start of the ANI report.

Also, it's best for everybody that you resign as admin. You are not up-to-date with current policies and guidelines. You haven't used any of your admin tools since 2012 based on your logs. The current RfA is not the RfA from when you were granted admin tools. Things have changed since then. In my opinion, you are in no position to be an admin based on your behavior lately. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 01:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

: One thing I do moderately frequently that a non-administrator cannot do is moving pages over redirects, so your statement about 2012 is not correct. However, I've never attempted to keep up with policies not related to my regular activities.
Yes, some have said that what MjolnirPants did was not bullying. I disagree.
MjolnirPants told me that (1) a page to which I had linked existed primarily for the purpose of selling something, and (2) that an article I had created was a duplicate of another page, and he didn't tell me _which_ page, and I didn't know, but that (3) he would wait a week before calling for speedy deletion so I could improve the page. He didn't wait a week, but moved quickly. I responded to (1), that the linked page made NO attempt to sell anything, and (2) he should tell me _which_ page he thought was duplicated, since I didn't know. My disagreement with (1) and my inquiry about (2) were respectful.
But he was angered by my having the effrontery to disagree with him, and said I had no right to dispute his points. That, he said, was why he decided not to wait a week. He claimed I was obligated not to dispute his point in (1) or inquire about (2).
Is there some policy that forbids me to dispute something (as in (1)) asserted by a less experienced user or to ask him to clarify (as in (2))?
Why is there a double standard that says if someone accuses me of "insulting" another user, that is an "accusation", but if I accuse him of bullying, that is _not_ an "accusation" but rather an "insult"? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Callmemirela. No offense to you, and I'm not going to have an opinion on who is or isn't bullying who, because if you feel you are being bullied, I respect that you feel that way. Regardless, these discussions aren't getting you anywhere. I also recommend, for your own benefit, that you just let this go. Don't communicate at all with the other user, because it's clear you won't be able to work together in harmony. Just focus on improving articles and stuff like that. I have been a victim of bullying and I now sometimes find myself just laughing at comments that come my way. That might not work for you, but for this situation, you'd be better off letting this go and not communicating with anyone you feel you can't get along with. Linguist 111 Please reply on the current talk page and ping me by typing {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message as a courtesy 05:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

## Thank you

Hi.

I created a dozen of math/comp. science article, and I often see you correct what I write. Or at least edit and improve my wording and my programs/maths formatting. So I wanted to thank you for this. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm glad you like it. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

## Please read

No action is going to be taken against MjolnirPants. If you can't accept this and let it go, then a block will be needed to stop your disruptive editing. --NeilN talk to me 04:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

## ArbCom request

I have made a request to ArbCom, in which I have named you as a party. It is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Michael Hardy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

## Note

I'm not sure if you've spent much time following arbitration matters (understandable if not, most people avoid us! :) but I just wanted to be sure you were aware this is often a fairly slow process, even at the early stage of deciding whether to accept a case request. Please feel free to take your time in deciding how to respond, both to the case request itself and to the feedback you've received leading up to it; you don't need to worry about replying hastily. (And for clarity's sake, I am one of the 12 currently active arbs.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like this case is proceeding faster than normal, there are already three votes to accept (one less than the acceptance threshold). Opa's advice usually holds, though. (I'm a clerk, but not speaking on behalf of ArbCom). Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

## Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Michael Hardy. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Michael Hardy. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their statements, including replies, to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up (not for the Committee), arbs have historically been likely to grant extensions to the subjects of arbitration case requests. Submitting a request for more space is not inadvisable. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I have reduced your arbitration statement length to the 660 words mark (slightly over the prescribed limit). This has been done as a clerk action and should not be undone without the express permission of the Arbitration Committee. The majority of what was removed also failed to show diffs supporting the statements. Please could you check your statement and support the remaining claims with the appropriate evidence. Amortias (T)(C) 19:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

## User talk:MjolnirPants

Michael, according to the revision history, in this diff you inserted both MjolnirPants' response to your question and your response to him. What's going on? GoldenRing (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He copied it from his own talk page here, section "Proposed deletion of Ancestral health", above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fermi–Dirac. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

## Please note

Guy Macon asked you not to post to his talk page a couple days ago. [1] Please respect that request. --NeilN talk to me 12:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

## Ears burning

A heads up that there is a thread about you started now at Wikipediocracy, entitled "A Nice Day for a Hanging."

My unsolicited advice to you would be to resign the Administrative tools as quickly as possible and to get back to regular editing work without saying another word about the recent dustup. Sorry that you've run into trouble and I and others appreciate you ongoing service to The Project. —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

## Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can I confirm that your statement at the workshop page of the above request was intended for its location. As it does not appear to be a motion or request it seems like it may have been aimed at the evidence page. Amortias (T)(C) 20:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

## Your statements at Arbitration evidence

Hi,

Per the statement regarding evidence being submitted requiring diffs

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Could you please arrange to supply the required diffs to the statements being presented or remove those that are not supported.

Amortias (T)(C) 21:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

As more than 24 hours have passed since this request was logged and you have edited in the meantime I have trimmed your statement to remove the sections unsupported by diffs. If you are able to include diffs to back up the statements then they may be included otherwise they should not be reinserted without the prior authorisation of a clerk or arbitrator.Amortias (T)(C) 22:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Please refrain from making personal attacks. The statement removed here does not add to the evidence being presented and is uncivil. Further additions of such material will result in you being prohibited from editing the case pagesa and having to submit evidence directly to the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 15:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed this section as the edit summary used for its addition linked it to a specific editor, as no diffs were provided to back up these claims it has been removed as the 48 hours you advsied diffs would be added within has expired. If you are able to supply diffs to confirm these statements you may reinsert them. Otherwise they should not be reinserted without the express permission of a clerk or arbitrator. Amortias (T)(C) 12:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

## Leave me alone

Since you refuse to let it go, make false accusations against me and have a battleground mentality, I ask you to leave me alone and never post on my talk page again. Goodbye. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 06:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one with a battleground mentality? You've been harrassing me. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

## Possible explanation

Would you have time to look at what I said here? I have been trying to understand why there has been such a disconnect in perceptions in this dispute. Your thoughts on that would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

## Evidence submission restriction

Hi Michael.

You were previously warned by myself that personal attacks are prohibited and that you may be restricted from participation in arbitration cases if they continue. Since then you have made further personal attacks, the following restriction is now in place with regards to your participation at the Arbitration pages related to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy:

For 24 hours from the timing of this post you are prohibited from adding evidence to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence without being pre-approved by an arb/clerk.

This approval may be sought by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org, and if the proposed addition is free of personal attacks and is appropriately supported it will be granted.

Violations of this restriction or the addition of inappropriate material to other case pages may lead to it being enforced through the use of blocks.

This restriction is enacted pursuant to WP:AC/CP#Maintaining_order_and_decorum_on_arbitration_pages and may be appealed to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

Amortias (T)(C) 20:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

While it by no means is required, as the other case clerk I endorse this restriction and remind you that conduct during a case may be considered by arbitrators when making their final decisions. 21:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Amortias: : Where are the personal attacks? There are numerous allegations against me on that page. Has everyone who posted those been similarly admonished about personal attacks against me? The section to which you link contains a diff and points out the context and says MjolnirPants addressed me in language suitable only to an overseer addressing slaves. Is there a difference between a "personal attack" rather than an allegation for which evidence is presented? Are others allowed to make such allegations, whcih constitute "personal attacks" only if done by me? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
If you believe that statements that are being made are personal attacks and that they have been overlooked by myself or my colleagues please let me know and I will review them and action according to my best judgement. Amortias (T)(C) 22:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Amortias: Please tell me where the personal attacks are that you say I wrote. It appears to me that there is a double standard: Someone saying I did something wrong is not treated as a "personal attack" but when I say someone did something wrong, with arguments and evidence, you call it a personal attack. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Dear Michael: you compared an editor to a slavedriver. That is a personal attack. There is a big difference between an allegation (sourced or not) and a personal attack. This was a personal attack, and I urge you not to make any more of them. As the wise man once said, if you're in a hole, stop digging. You're in a hole: please stop digging. Maybe it was a wise woman, who knows. Now kindly leave the clerks alone; they're doing their job (they do it for free and, unlike the arbs, they don't even get the use of Courcelles's hot tub) and they seem to be doing a pretty decent job. Focus on what you need to do, not on how you can rub more people the wrong way. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
What I said was that he addressed me in language suitable only to an overseer addressing a slave. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Michael, your failure to acknowledge your violation of WP:NPA is appalling and I hope the Arbitration Committee take this instance into account when deciding on an appropriate sanction. Zerotalk 11:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
: I have not failed to acknowledge that policy; I have behaved consistently with it. If I make an accusation backed up by evidence, that is not a violation of the policy, any more than you violate the policy by accusing me of violating it. I could call _that_ a "personal attack" with equal justification. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I have not personally attacked you. Please read WP:NPA carefully. Zerotalk 17:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
: That you did not personally attack me is what I just said. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

## Calculus handouts

Hi, Michael Hardy. You have mentioned some calculus handouts in some of your answers at Math Stack Exchange, but all the links seem to be broken by now. :( I could only find https://web.archive.org/web/20100729024925/http://www.math.umn.edu/~hardy/1271/handouts.html , but only one PDF is still downloadable. :( I am curious about them. Are there any working links to them? Thank you. 189.63.174.142 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that this link is working. I'll see if I can find the other ones. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I've read some of your answers there, and I like your ideas on the teaching of calculus. 189.63.174.142 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest. I'll probably post some things here within a couple of weeks. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

## Ancestral Health

You are probably sick of this topic by now, but to me it is clear that this "movement" is far more significant than movies or video games or movie stars or porn stars (for which there are thousands of Wikipedia articles). Personally, I don't agree with a lot of the ideas of this movement, but I do think it is worthwhile to accurately report on what they believe. That guy that you reported to ANI was far too eager to delete your article; I think you had a legitimate reason for using ANI. On the other hand, this ARBCOM case against you is completely ridiculous. Don't let them make you give up your administrator status. Jrheller1 (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

## Workshop posts

Hi Michael

I have standardised the layout of our proposals at the workshops phase. If you are able to could you give each of the sections an appropriate heading where I have left the hidden comments in your section to finish the standardisation it would be greatly appreciated. Amortias (T)(C) 18:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

## Arbitration propossed decision

Hi Michael Hardy, in the open Michael Hardy arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

## Extended confirmed protection

 Hello, Michael Hardy. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy. Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas. In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions: Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort. A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard. Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

## Michael i just read your message about capitalizing

I am very sorry. I am trying to learn quickly enough to keep up with the modern age that you guys have created. Thank-you for letting me know. I will be careful with the capitals. Warm regards Mim.cis (talk)

## Nomination of Right circular hollow cylinder for deletion

Hello. A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Right circular hollow cylinder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right circular hollow cylinder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, please do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thank you. — Anita5192 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

## Karl Schröter

Hi Michael Hardy, do you happen to read German? Scope creep (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

## Re: proper link

Sorry for that. I was writing outside my comfort zone. I haven't the faintest idea what a lie superalgebra is. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's a Lie superalgebra, with a capital "L", since "Lie" is a person's name. It rhymes with "tree". See Sophus Lie. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

## Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

## A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Michael Hardy.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

## ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Michael Hardy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Michael Hardy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## v:Calculus I

Michael: That is the new home for that page. Thanks for your help with the math markup. Please review that page there and tell others (high school and college math students and faculty) about it. Thanks in advance.--2602:304:CDC1:90:64C5:4976:D62C:FF33 (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

## Probability distribution of extreme points of a Wiener stochastic process

Hi, thank you for improving the page. The introduction is still work in progress (I have still to translate it from the italian page). Apart from this you changed "extrema" with "extreme". I meant "extrema" as either "maxima" or "minima".

Extremum, plural Extrema, in calculus, any point at which the value of a function is largest (a maximum) or smallest (a minimum). There are both absolute and relative (or local) maxima and minima.Jul 20, 1998 extremum | mathematics | Britannica.com https://www.britannica.com/topic/extremum

So would you reconsider the change, considering the above?

Cheers, --db

Ballad2 (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ballad2: : For some decades I have been aware of the meaning of "extremum" and its plural "extrema". But I used those words only as nouns, not as adjectives. Hence I wrote "extreme points". Michael Hardy (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, undestood. Thank you for the explanation. I was misguided by the fact that in italian adjectives are declined (singular vs. plural) as well as nouns. Maybe I should have dropped "points", so extrema would becomes a noun. You are native tongue, so you can suggest the best option.

Ballad2 (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

## Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

## Article on stochastic process completely re-written

Hi Michael, I recall you being a regular contributor to articles on mathematics and statistics. I just thought you would like to know that I completely re-wrote the article on stochastic processes. I hope I persevered any of your contributions, at least in spirit. I would also be open to any suggestions of improving the revised article. Thanks for your time. Improbable keeler (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

## Happy New Year, Michael Hardy!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

## Reference errors on 9 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

## Duolingo has dropped its Immersion translation system; perhaps Wikipedia can get it from them

Hi Michael,

Duolingo had an Immersion component where I worked on translations, often from Wikipedia. It was a system where people would crowd-source and come up with good translations. I think Wikipedia should look into picking up Duolingo's Immersion system of translation -- it would be a lot better than the current system which has run into problems with people using machine-translation too much. Duolingo's crowd-sourcing technique is far better. Could you send this information to people in Wikipedia who may be interested? I'm willing to help look into it, too. Thanks, --RJGray (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting.... I'll run this by a few people. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Economics of information security listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Economics of information security. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Economics of information security redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

## Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

## Ptolemy's table of chords

The "sixtieths" column is missing leading zeros: 0;1,20,50 and not 1;20,50.
They indicate arcminute increases ("for each 1° increase" is wrong).
Don't understand why you divide by 1/2, shouldn't you divide by 30?
Please also see the article's talk page.
84.41.34.154 (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

<T>he third <column will contain> the thirtieth part of the increment in the chord for each interval. [This last] is so that we may have the average increment corresponding to one minute [of arc], which will not be sensibly different from the true increment [for each minute]. Thus we can easily calculate the amount of the chord corresponding to fractions which fall between the [tabulated] half-degree intervals. <G. J. Toomer, Ptolemy's ALMAGEST. London: Duckworth, 1984, p. 56>

The leading zeros can arguably be omitted because the column lists sixtieths and in our modern understanding 0;1 sixtieth is 0;0,1 and not 0;1 (or in the decimal number system: 0.1 tenth is 0.01 and not 0.1). But the fallacy then is that we read the values as increases per degree rather than per arcminute. The numerical values are the same, of course, except that they're shifted one decimal place to the right. That's because 1°=60'. Or explained in more detail: You go from ½° to 1° by dividing the difference between chord (θ+½)° and chord (θ°) by ½ (in the decimal system) resp. by multiplying it by 2 (in both the decimal and sexagesimal systems) while Ptolemy, going from ½° = 30' to 1', divided it by 30 which, in the sexagesimal system, is the same as multiplying it by 0;2 (its reciprocal).

An example: 112 ½° - 112° (I'll write 0;0n instead of 0;n to avoid confusion between 0;n and 0;n0 (n=natural number <10)).
99;46,35 - 99;29,05 = 0;17,30 = 17/60 + 30/3600 = 0.2916…
0;17,30 * 0;02 = 0;0,35 = 35/3600 = 0.00972…= 0.2916…/30
0;17,30 * 2 = 0;35 = 35/60 = 0.583… = 2 * 0.2916…

Moreover, the values given in the third column are of no value if we can't use them to interpolate values we don't already have, that is, values for angles that aren't multiples of ½°.—84.41.34.154 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I will look at this further. The difference between dividing by 1/2 and dividing by 30 is only a difference in the location of the sexagesimal point; it doesn't alter the sequence of digits. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

## Using nowrap with pipes

see my comments and corrections. 98.230.196.215 (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

## Survival function

Hi Michael, would you mind having a look at Survival function? There is an on-going discussion on Talk:Survival function about whether some detailed explanatory material should be deleted. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

## Talk pages for individual articles

Michael,

You posted some informational points on my talk page this week. I'm still learning some of the ropes about editing with Wikipedia. I figure you are a knowledgeable source to ask about this.

Are there individual talk pages for specific articles and topics to coordinate new additions / layouts of the the articles? For example, I've been doing a lot of additions to the generating functions, Stirling numbers of the first kind, and Stirling polynomial articles this week and I would like to know if there are any other users actively contributing to these pages, or who have some general layout for what more stable versions of these articles should look like. Another example of what I'm asking for is related to the last sentence I left on P-recurrences and holonomic generating functions. Depending on how in depth other contributors want to get with adding references to software packages and algorithms for evaluating sums and/or generating functions, this topic could be expanded significantly.

Do you have any pointers for coordinating with other users on articles?

-- Maxie (talk)

@Maxieds: Who else has worked on an article can be found in the edit history – click on "View history" at the top. Articles can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I don't know of a more narrowly focused active discussion page that would deal with all of those articles. Each article separately has its talk page, or else you can create the page by clicking on "talk" at the top. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

## About page Characterization of probability distribution

Dear Wikimedia Administrator, Please check my updated page about Characterization of probability distributions and if it is OK please remove is incomplete sign which You have added. Thank You. Žydrūnas VU (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't yet checked what you added for correctness, but I think you're getting fairly abstract too early in the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Please check it when You will be able and please let me know if I need to add something more. Please comment as detailed as You can as English is not my native language and it is hard to understand sometimes. Thank You. Žydrūnas VU (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Please check my edited page when You can. Thank You. Žydrūnas VU (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

## thank you for your edits and guidance on usage conventions on Erica N. Walker

Thank you Michael!

I do not have a writing background, so I have much to learn in creating articles on Wikipedia. I learn from all the edits and corrections I see on my new articles as well as reading the tutorials.

I will keep your guidelines close so I won't continue to make the same mistakes.

Maura

MauraWen (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

## Moving Erica N. Walker to Erica Walker

I see why you moved Erica N. Walker.

I chose to use the middle initial because I was concerned that people searching would get Erica Walker mathematician mixed up with Ericka Walker, artist. I even thought of titling the article, Erica Walker (mathematician)

I defer to your expertise. Thanks

MauraWen (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@MauraWen: : Maybe creating and article titled Erica Walker (artist) and then moving the present article to Erica Walker (mathematician) would be better. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@MauraWen: : oh, I see: It's a different spelling. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

## Log-normal distribution

Would you be so kind to have a look at Talk:Log-normal distribution#Density? Madyno (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

## Vereinigtes Königreich listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vereinigtes Königreich. Since you had some involvement with the Vereinigtes Königreich redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

## Division by zero

Hi! I write here the answer to your points.

> Division of a real number by an infinitesimal (and there are many DIFFERENT infinitesimals) does not yield an infinite ordinal or cardinal number, but rather yields an infinitely large hyperreal

I had written:

n ÷ ε = n x ω

Where do I say that the result is not an infinitely large hyperreal? n x ω means exactly "infinitely large hyperreal".

> if it were true that that always yields the number 1, then all derivatives would be equal to 1

Well, again, not all the infinitesimals divided by other infinitesimals are equal to 1, but rather all the infinitesimals divided by themselves are always equal to 1. That is:

ε ÷ ε = 2ε ÷ 2ε = 3ε ÷ 3ε = 1, etc.

But, for giving you a different example,

ε² ÷ ε ≠ 1

In the infinitesimal calculus ε normally does not mean "any infinitesimal", but rather a very precise infinitesimal.

--85.181.251.150 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken in saying that 'n x ω means exactly "infinitely large hyperreal".' The transfinite ordinal number ω is not an infinitely large hyperreal at all. Infinitely large hyperreal numbers behave very differently from transfinite ordinal numbers. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

## FBI has not been here

You know, i don't think anyone has written it up. I know when I fist came out with them the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the Vermont Library Association gave them out to all VTs libraries. A few put them up. I'm not sure how many still have them up. I don't think the FBI ever came by. Amusingly, the town I live in now DID get a visit from the police once, and they tried to take the computers. And our town librarians said Come back with a warrant" Not the same thing, of course, since there is no gag order and the gag order itself was ruled unconstitutional so now they're less necessary than they were before. I find the whole idea of Warrant Canaries fascinating and was really sad to see this website go away... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/canary-watch-one-year-later Jessamyn (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: Your reply is the first time I recall encountering the term "warrant canary. I hadn't realized the provision for gag orders was no longer in effect. I presume that means they can be explicit instead of just taking down the sign.

What were the police after? Did they get the warrant? I would think any particular legal case for which information was needed from a public library would require only records of particular transactions rather than everything stored on the computers. Maybe if they suspected someone had been using the libraries computers to sell child pornography or sex slaves they'd want to search through everything. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep you can check out the Connecticut Four and read more about the gag order being struck down. The police in my town's case did not come back with a warrant. This was basically a young kid who had disappeared and the cops had reason to believe that communications with her may have happened via library computers. So they wanted the logs from the last few weeks. I don't think our library keeps them but they were following all leads (did not turn out well, unfortunately, but the library aspect of it wasn't the crucial point) Jessamyn (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

## Exponential response formula

Hello Mr It feels you are good in math. Could you please have a look on article we are working on and give us few hints how can we improve it? Wandalen (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

## History of Chinese Americans Edit

I wanted to thank you for your edit to History of Chinese Americans. I had reverted an anon editor who had made it before and on reviewing your change realized I had been in error. I have apologized (and welcomed) the anon editor, but wanted to thank you for your edit. It is appreciated.

--KNHaw (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

## June 2017

Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Admission to the Union, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In addition, this does not belong in the lede, which should summarize the high points of the article text. If you do decide to re-add this (with a source, of course), please put it in the appropriate part of the body rather than the lede. TJRC (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

## Bernoulli number

Hi Michael Hardy, since you once contributed to the page Bernoulli number I'd appreciate your comment or vote to my question in the talk page. Regards: Herbmuell (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC).

## Nomination of Cut-the-Knot for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cut-the-Knot is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cut-the-Knot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 02:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

## Firstbit rotting listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firstbit rotting. Since you had some involvement with the Firstbit rotting redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

## MoS applicability to outside works

Are you sure you're doing this properly? It seems to me someone else's headline should be copied verbatim, regardless of Wikipedia's own style. I'm not certain, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dynamical neuroscience, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Threshold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

## Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of \$200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

## ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Michael Hardy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Nina Berkhout

The article Nina Berkhout has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

## Spectral Clustering

Since you seem to know about this matter, do you consider this 2017, 0 citations, self-cite to be relevant? [2]? Tony is very aggressive about pushing self-cites to his own work onto Wikipedia, and disrespects my opinion because I am "not a major editor" (well, nor is he, for that matter). I'd appreciate your 3rd opinion. Thank you. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe HelpUsStopSpam means me. This is a self-appointed vigilante who does his best to eliminate anything he deems unworthy as "spam" including especially his apparent jihad against ResearchGate. He does not seem to understand nor appreciate that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia designed primarily to inform and explain. References should be in reputable journals, yes, but to the best of my knowledge there is no emphasis on number of citations in the guidelines. How could it be for e.g. a recent publication? The issue in question concerns a recent review article and makes the connection between the Meila-Shi algorithm, diffusion maps and quantum mechanics. Since it is recent, of course it has no citations yet. I submit such a connection is important to know. [On this very talk-page, I see a mention a discussion about a "Quantum master equation" indicating a possible interest in such a connection]. This vigilante does not appreciate what the no-self citation policy actually states and I quote from COI rules: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." The reference in question respected those guidelines; it was a short modest one-line statement intended to inform and yes, wikipedia, wants references.TonyMath (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
On the matter of disrespect towards other wikipedia editors, you will find on the talk page of HelpUsStopSpam a number of complaints from other wikipedia editors whose contributions he has cut to shreds simply because HelpUsStopSpam deems them unworthy according to his own criteria - not wikipedia's policies (e.g. policies against being a fanatic! or Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). They tried to reason with him to reach some level of compromise but he just succeeded in imposing his will because he is (i) rigid and (ii) aggressive. You will find that most of his contributions are of this nature. I do get his point of view that a number of wikipedia editors abuse wikipedia to promote unworthy companies or unworthy causes but his "cure" manages to be far worse than the disease.TonyMath (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Speaking about aggressive... look at what you are doing. In case you do not realize this: but cleaning up the mess all the citation-farmers and spammers here add is not a very thankful job. Yes, people will get annoyed if you remove their paper... you are a typical example of this, you feel very offended because I do not appreciate your addition. But try to imagine how unreadable the articles were, if we wouldn't drop most papers spammed, unless they prove to have a lot of impact. The article would only consist of random references. I am part of the cleaning ladies, that have to frequently clean up the trash that people dump into Wikipedia.
"undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion". It is undue that you emphasize your work (that has 0 citations, is in a low-quality journal that hasn't had a paper with 10 citations yet, with a publisher that is considered to be "predatory"...) over the thousands of other articles that we could put on the page that have many more citations. Your work likely is not a breakthrough, sorry. And because of this, "defer to the community's opinion", which means: including my opinion, but excluding yours (because you have a conflict of interest, speaking of WP policies)... the policy does not say "restore your stuff if someone objects, and wikihound your 'opponents' until they cave in"! So, stop your personal attacks. Prove that your article is worth including, and convince someone rather than trying to "battle" this. Snap out of your holy war. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
You always start as the aggressor and you are proving my point. If you disagree with an wikipedia entry, normally you should express this in a talk-page, attempt to reach a consensus with other editors, often with a major editor of that particular site having the final say. It's not always a matter of achieving unanimous agreement. Instead you make a unilateral decision, then cut out the entry, and add insult to injury by calling it "spam". Most of your so-called contributions are of that nature. Just count the number of times you see the word "spam" in your contributions. When the wikipedia user complains on your talk-page, you completely ignore their arguments and rigidly impose your personal criteria. A lot of wiki editors have caved into you! E.g. You refuse to understand that science and especially math journals have much lower readership and thus much lower impact factors, etc... You are not a major editor, yet you have appointed yourself as some kind of "grim reaper" stalking other wikipedia editors by following their contributions and watchlist. BTW, I could have (and perhaps should have) put a COI flag from your inflammatory entry on ResearchGate given your openly expressed bias against it but that would have penalized the site itself and other editors while drawing too much attention to the COI. Wikipedia had already mentioned the criticism against ResearchGate objectively but you tipped the scales by adding your fuel to the fire. Wikipedia cannot afford to be dragged into disputes nor especially law suits. TonyMath (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You might be happy to know that like many other editors, I have also caved in largely for the sake of harmony so that the editors here are left alone. I have removed the citation in question. This means you are free to leave this site and continue doing your hatchet work elsewhere as I am sure you will. Eventually other editors may finally realize how destructive you are and have you blocked for good. FYI, I am confident this has to happen. Another wiki editor who knows your identity, tells me: "Yes he is a fanatic having had some of his own work rejected. He now makes it a quest to remove anyone who tries to get their own work listed, and does not give you any leeway or grace for being right." TonyMath (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

## Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bzuk: Merry Christmas! Michael Hardy (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

## Diff E

I studied diff e in college but that was a long time ago, and I'm sorry to say I'm not following what's going on in Kansa method. I'm in communication with E. J. Kansa (OTRS), and working to resolve an issue regarding account creation. While I work on that, I offered to post some comments on the article talk page. I was going to contact you to see if you could take a look at them but I'm happy to see that you have contributed to this article so I'm hoping you can contribute. If you'd be willing to communicate directly I will ask for permission to share his email address.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

## Thanks...

...for your edits and your comments, still trying to get used to the conventions in the English speaking Wikipedia. --NikelsenH (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

## Focus on women mathematicians in February

 Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons. (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

## Division Caption

 The Original Barnstar Michael Hardy, I cannot thank you enough for this addition to Division (mathematics). There are so many people who simply don't recognize that there are two equally valid interpretations to division (usually because they only accept the way they were taught). Well done.Unschool 06:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

## Definition of a monotone class

I really want to revert your edit, because it makes the paragraph ugly and uncolloquial and impenetrable, compared to my sentence. But you're an administrator and I'm not, so instead I'm simply asking you please to revert it yourself, or at least give me sanction to edit it back a bit towards its former form, without you coming down on me with a mass of wiki-speak ... Eleuther (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link omitted from the comment above: Monotone class theorem. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eleuther: I don't know that anyone's status as an administrator would be a reason to approach _this_ kind of situation differently, but for now I've put it back the way it was, except that it says ${\displaystyle \bigcup \limits _{i=1}^{\infty }A_{i}\,}$ rather than ${\displaystyle \cup _{i=1}^{\infty }A_{i},\,}$ the latter being arguably incorrect typesetting usage. I'm pondering some alternatives:

A monotone class is a collection M of set-theoretic classes which is closed under countable monotone unions and intersections, i.e. if ${\displaystyle A_{i}\in M}$ and ${\displaystyle A_{1}\subset A_{2}\subset \cdots }$ then ${\displaystyle \bigcup _{i=1}^{\infty }A_{i}\in M}$, and similarly in the other direction.
Another version:
A monotone class is a collection M of set-theoretic classes which is closed under countable monotone unions and intersections, i.e.
{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{if }}&A_{1}\subset A_{2}\subset A_{3}\subset \cdots {\text{ then }}\bigcup _{i=1}^{\infty }A_{i}\in M\\[5pt]{\text{and if }}&A_{1}\supset A_{2}\supset A_{3}\supset \cdots {\text{ then }}\bigcap _{i=1}^{\infty }A_{i}\in M.\end{aligned}}}

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I also have some qualms about the link to class (set theory). A proper class is a class that is not a member of any other class, and classes that are such members are sets. Thus a monotone class is in fact just a set, not a proper class. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. I need to think about it some more before responding. Eleuther (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, a day later, I think I see your objection, and it seems to be a good one. The definition seems to be using ${\displaystyle \in }$ in some places where it shouldn't, but I need to do some more thinking and research (to find a citable source) before trying a fix. Thanks! Eleuther (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, my main initial objection to your change was its use of bigcup, which caused the paragraph to no longer look like a paragraph, and which is the only part you've now retained. Why do you consider the inline version to be a "typesetting violation?" Eleuther (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Within a paragraph of text, that bigcup is far too ugly. I don't see what's "incorrect" about typesetting the inline formula with the small cup. This typesetting choice makes no change to the mathematical meaning of the formula. Tayste (edits) 11:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tayste: See below. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eleuther: You are confused about notation. \cup is not an inline version of \bigcup. Rather, \bigcup has both a display version and an inline version. Likewise \cup is appropriate either in display or inline.

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&A\cup B,\qquad A_{1}\cup \cdots \cup A_{n}\\[6pt]&\bigcup _{n=1}^{N}A_{n}\end{aligned}}}

blah blah blah ${\displaystyle \displaystyle A\cup B}$ blah blah blah ${\displaystyle \displaystyle A_{1}\cup \cdots \cup A_{n}}$ blah blah blah ${\displaystyle \displaystyle \bigcup _{n=1}^{N}A_{n}}$

blah blah blah ${\displaystyle \textstyle A\cup B}$ blah blah blah ${\displaystyle \textstyle A_{1}\cup \cdots \cup A_{n}}$ blah blah blah ${\displaystyle \textstyle \bigcup _{n=1}^{N}A_{n}}$

The last two lines look different from each other in the browser in which I'm viewing it, in that one of them has the display version of \bigcup and the other has the inline version and the subscripts are positioned conspicuously differently from each other.

Ever since the beginning of 2003 or maybe late 2002 we have lived daily with the fact that Wikipedia's version of TeX produces ridiculous-looking results in that font sizes and alignments don't match the surrounding text. What you're seeing may be just another instance of that. But thinking that \bigcup is intended for display and \cup for inline is way out of touch with reality. Using \bigcup in display when \cup is appropriate, or vice-versa, produces absurd-looking results:

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\text{This is plainly wrong, whether in display or in inline: }}A\bigcup B.\\[5pt]&{\text{This is correct usage, whether in display or in inline: }}A\cup B.\\[5pt]&{\text{This is plainly wrong, whether in display or in inline: }}\cup _{n=1}^{N}A_{n}.\end{aligned}}}

Michael Hardy (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is the inline version of \bigcup:

blah blah blah ${\textstyle \bigcup _{n=1}^{N}A_{n}}$

Here is the display version of \bigcup:

blah blah blah $\bigcup _{n=1}^{N}A_{n}$

Whether these look similar in your browser window to the way they look in mine we cannot be sure of, unless screenshots are used. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for spending so much ink on this. I have also myself spent way too much of my life span struggling with TeX and its variants. Your point seems to be that \cup should only be used for the binary operation, and \bigcup should only be used for the operation with limits, is that right? But the problem, as I see it, is that when \bigcup is used inside a [itex] environment, it has no way to determine whether it is inline or not, so it must assume the over/under formatting, which breaks the paragraph. Eleuther (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to be so dumb, but I now see from your example that one may specify a display=inline attribute on the [itex] environment, that fixes the problem, and I also see that you have now applied this fix to the article, so thanks, good work, wish you'd done it this way in the first place. Eleuther (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

## \operatorname* in Wikitext math markup

Hi! Thanks for tidying up my TeX in the repeated median regression article, but unfortunately the \operatorame* directive does not seem to work in this context, instead rendering an embedded SVG output which contains unintended visible asterisks. (See, for example, this SVG output.) I've therefore partially reverted your edit to use the previous markup. This is probably a bug in the wikitext TeX rendering code, but I'm not sure where to report it-- The Anome (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I've now reported this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Typography, where I hope it should get some attention. -- The Anome (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

## Draft:Multivariate quadratic random number generator

I see you worked on this page. Is it good to accept now? Legacypac (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

## Markov Odometer

Hey Michael Hardy, I'm writing here since I'm a new editor and don't fully understand what to do about my issue. I saw you are a senior editor so I thought you may help me. Hope it's ok with you.

I wrote the article above few days ago. Melcous added two templates to the article: The first is {{technical}} and the second is {{coi}}. I'm not sure what is the reason for the second, maybe because my user name is the same as the article name. I removed the second template since it's completely refuted to think that I have any personal interest to the mathematical notion of Odometer. As for the first template I'm not sure: On one hand it's indeed hard to understand to the non-mathematical reader. On the other hand it's impossible to make any article about advanced mathematical notion accessible to the usual reader. As for example, the articles Wasserstein metric or Ergodic flow are not less technical, and it's clear to me that it's not possible to make them accessible to the general reader. I'd like to know your opinion about it.

Thank you, Markov Odometer (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the attention and for the revision of the article. Markov Odometer (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

## Lebesgue vs Lebesque

Hi Michael Hardy, There is some confusion about the spelling of that name. We have here Henri Lebesgue, and the mathematical articles are spelled the same (Lebesgue measure, Lebesgue integration, Riemann–Lebesgue lemma, etc.) and on the other hand we have a disambiguation page called Lebesque.

First we need standardization, of course. Second, we probably should have disambiguation page or a list for the the mathematical articles which are called after Henri Lebesgue. I couldn't create it since I'm not sure what name it should curried. Could you please see what can be done about it?

By the way, maybe you will be interested in a new article I wrote: Projection (measure theory). If you could contribute to this article it'll be great. Markov Odometer (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Are there any mathematical articles or any biographical articles about Henri Lebesgue that don't spell it with a "g"?
Not, as far as I know. Yet, I think the pages "Lebesgue" and "Lebesque" should be the same (namely, one directs to another), since probably the usual reader doesn't distinct between these two forms. Markov Odometer (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Mixing in — as far as I know, Lebesque is simply an error. If you want to make it an {{R from misspelling}}, I suppose that would be OK. --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually I take it back, as it seems that there was a Morvan Lebesque. So {{R from misspelling}} is out. I'm not convinced that there needs to be a disambig page. Having Lebesque redirect to Morvan Lebesque, with a {{confused}} hatnote at the top of the latter, makes more sense to me. --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

## En dash and cite templates

FYI, you might like to know that some of your changes to Cramér–Rao bound had no effect. The {{cite}} templates change a hyphen in page ranges to an en-dash automatically. Tayste (edits) 17:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they had no effect. Think about how these things get used. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Georg Cantor's first set theory article

Thanks for the GA Review nomination. Because SpinningSpark did such a great review in the last GA Review, I tried to get him interested in this review. He is too busy, but is concerned about the nomination process and who is doing the review. You can check out his concerns on his User_talk:Spinningspark#GA_review:_Cantor's_first_set_theory_article_(rewrite_of_Cantor's_first_uncountability_proof). I hope that I didn't add confusion to the GA process. --RJGray (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Loop sectioning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

## Nomination of Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

## Lluis Puig

Hi Michael, I am surprised to see we don’t have an article on Lluis Puig(the group theorist). I may have misremembered seeing one here before, or just assumed there would be such an article, or perhaps there was an article that I had seen before and it was somehow deleted?! Regards, Rich (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears that that article exists: Lluís Puig Michael Hardy

(talk) 20:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

that’s a different lluis puig.Rich (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
ok, Sorry. I don't know anything about this group theorist. Maybe you should post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.

Michael Hardy (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Georg Cantor's first set theory article

The article Georg Cantor's first set theory article you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Georg Cantor's first set theory article for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Robert's most recently wikipedia contribution is of 11 June, so he might be in holidays and unable to do the fixes within the remaining 5 days. Would it be possible to extend the on-hold time until 7 days after Robert is back again? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the right person to ask about that. Apparently Bilorv is. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

## Georg Cantor's first set theory article: Skolem's paradox

I wonder if we could sketch a "first-order sentence that says the set of real numbers is uncountable", maybe in a footnote. Naively, I'd think a sentence about (un)countability would need a second-order quantifier, in order to speak about bijections. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

All of the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms of set theory of in first-order sentences. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

## Email

Hi. I sent you an email related to current work on set theory. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

## Your GA nomination of Georg Cantor's first set theory article

The article Georg Cantor's first set theory article you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Georg Cantor's first set theory article for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Michael Hardy -- Michael Hardy (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

## Thank you

Hi Michael, Thanks for nominating Georg Cantor's first set theory article as a Good Article and for starting the improvements when I was on vacation. I finished up the necessary improvements yesterday and as you know, Bilorv certified it as a Good Article. —RJGray (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

## Personal attack

I have no particular interest in the articles in question, but I have strong problems with Given the personal nature of the comments from everyone who has said there is no libel here, one can only have suspicions of strange political motives. You might want to consider striking that comment really quickly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? How do you explain their behavior? They seem like people who use only intimidation and not reason to try to influence people, and they feel threatened. Isn't that how they're behaving? Why do they attack me personally instead of arguing? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You've been an admin longer than I have, you shouldn't need to ask why personal attacks on editors should be redacted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I was defending myself against personal attacks. And since those attacks appear to have no motive, one can only wonder if there's some hidden motive. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time to give up the mop voluntarily. It's clear that you're pretty wide of what people feel is good judgement. Toddst1 (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Toddst1: Nothing of the sort is clear. The people who attacked and bullied me are not representative of the population as a whole. All remaining respect I had of Administrators' Noticeboard consensuses is gone as a result of all those tantrums those people threw. And only a stupid gullible fool would still regard them as anything but riffraff after that kind of behavior. The Noticeboard has become a place for a certain species of bully to congregate. They are not honest. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Toddst1: If you must address me on this issue, you should understand the facts. One of those facts is that I have written this. And another is that none of the six dishonest cowardly bullies posting to the Administrators' Noticeboard about this is an administrator. I checked. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they're administrators or not. You are their equal in terms of any discussion and emphatically, you need to stop with the name-calling. I'm considering an WP:RFAR regarding your behavior as someone completely uninvolved with the issue of libel at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Toddst1: They are not my masters either. Not one of them treated me as their "equal in terms of any discussion". Michael Hardy (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Exactly who are the "six dishonest cowardly bullies" you refer to? Are you inferring that I am bullying you? I'm sure you're aware that you are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about [your] Wikipedia-related conduct. Toddst1 (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Toddst1: I shouldn't have to tell you the following if you claim to be sufficiently aware of any of this to comment on it: They are @Davey2010: @Roxy the dog: @Softlavender: @John from Idegon: @Ammarpad: @Beyond My Ken.
Not one of them is civil to anyone about anything. That is not name-calling; that is accusation.
In the early days of Wikipedia it was chaotic; then it started to become civilized and intelligent; now it's attracting bullies. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Toddst1: Do not tell me to be civil while ordering me to submit meekly to bullying by persons who lack a shred of respect for civility. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: This recent experience was the last straw and I have posted this. I have edited Wikipedia daily since 2002. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Michael, if you don't stop doubling down on the personal attacks against particular editors, I'm sorry, but I will have to block you. Please consider what you're doing, and what the community expects of you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

For what amounts of time did you block those who personally attacked me? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• For the record, Joe Roe is an administrator, and was the very first to opine that there was nothing problematical in the AfD debate. [3] He also brought up your ArbCom reprimand. Softlavender (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

## User talk:194.181.20.145

My comment on that page was clearly not directed towards you. That you thought it was is truly troubling. Toddst1 (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

## August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for namecalling and doubling down on personal attacks against six named editors.[4][5]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 13:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The six are members of a de-facto privileged class who claim a right to be abusive to Wikipedians who don't bow down to members of that class. And they are deeply dishonest. There used to be mechanisms for dealing with such abusive behavior, but now the foxes are guarding the chicken coop. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access removed for remainder of block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
: I did not double down on personal attacks. I declined to withdraw an accusation. There was no reason why I should withdraw the accusation. Tell me whether you will require of every person who reports a crime to the police that they withdraw their reports or else you will consider them to be doubling down on insults or personal attacks against those whom they accuse. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

## Why this?

I am trying to work out why you choose this particular hill to die on. Email if you like. I'd like to understand. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

## While I don't necessarily agree with you on some things...

... there's definitely becoming a concept of a "super admin", one (or more) who can simply ignore even the most basic rules of Wikipedia, including protecting those who personally attack others and edit warring to maintain lies. I have a large (ever-increasing) catalogue of such inappropriate behaviour. Happy to share. Good luck in the future, resign the mop and carry on editing. Being an admin is nothing these days, especially since so many have sullied the role. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

## Thanks

Dear Michael, from your post at the WPM talk it seems you are fundamentally unsatisfied with some things here. Let me just pass a big "thank you" to you for your tireless work on math coverage -- I believe you are the most frequent editor on my watchlist, and I often enjoy learning little things from your improvements. Keep it up! Best, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad you like my contributions.
I am not dissatisfied with Wikipedia's articles or the ways in which people contribute to them, but I object to the fact that things like ANI are 100% corrupt. Those forums in Wikipedia that are concerned with enforcing norms rather than working on articles attract abusive people and are entirely corrupt. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I completely understand. I personally just stay away from these wiki politics; fortunately the math community here is sane enough. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

## Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Afootpluto (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

## I get it

Hi, Michael, afaik we have never communicated, but I can say, without qualification, that I relate to your feelings; as I have, and continue to have, the exact same feelings, not about Wikipedia stuff, but about aspects of my country's politics. I'm not saying my feelings are about more important aspects of life, just different aspects, as I have no knowledge or opinion about the Wikipedia situations which you have such strong feelings about. But, as a very old man, perhaps I can be of use to you in terms of dealing with your feelings by summarizing my own personal evolution in terms of dealing with my own strategic use of my time and passions.

It sounds to me similar to when the light bulb went on in my head that some of the leaders of my government, rather than being caring and protective of me and the other regular people, were actually very corrupt, dishonest and actually looked at all of us regular folk more as slaves to be tricked and used for the benefit of whatever agenda those few corrupt leaders had at any point in time. Once that light bulb went on, about 52 years ago now, I have never wanted to, much less been able to, turn it off.

Anyway, when my light bulb went on, it was in a funeral home where a buddy of mine, at 22 years old, was in a casket with his mother and sister wailing, not sobbing, but wailing behind a curtain, and the only reason my buddy was in the casket instead of me was because he was not born smart enough, and his parents were not financially well off enough, for him to get into University. So he, and others of his of his socioeconomic class, were sent by law/government edict, to a reality of horrors, pain, crippling injuries and death, while me, and almost all, of my socioeconomic class, like 3 recent Presidents, got a government sanctioned waiver to just sit on the sidelines and watch.

So, I know its impossible for me to turn off that light bulb, but back around 1980 I heard about something Winston Churchill said which has allowed me to carry on productively in my/that same country's politics with my light bulb blazing. What Churchill said was:

"NEVER QUIT"!

Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

## AN

A topic concerning you has been initiated at AN. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually somebody removed it already. nevermind, I'm sure it'll get sorted out. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

## Just curious...

Hi, Michael - the whole ancestral health discussion on Jimbo's TP aroused my curiosity so I did a bit of research in an effort to get myself up to speed on the topic. I'll admit up front that I'm not a medical professional and would rather leave that topic area to the experts; however, it doesn't hurt to learn new things or share what I found so here is an interesting link I found about the organization, Physicians for Ancestral Health. They state up front that as physicians they respect their professional limits, and make it quite clear that they aren't trying to replace proven treatments. Actually, this page describes the organization as international, and links to other sources. Just thought you'd like to know if you weren't already aware. Atsme📞📧 03:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Thank you. I was not aware of that page. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

## AN Notification.

There is a new discussion regarding yourself at WP:AN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

## DYK nomination of Georg Cantor's first set theory article

Hello! Your submission of Georg Cantor's first set theory article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see how it reads after I reformatted the hook, and also answer the question about number confusion. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

## Unilateral page move without engaging in discussion

The move looked odd, you didn't engage in the discussion I initiated Talk:Galois/Counter_Mode#Capitals, then I saw others have commented at #Unilateral page moves without engaging in discussion, so I undid. Please discuss in future, my edit comment is "contested move / change per WP:COMMONNAME and no discussion even when initiated on talk - get consensus next time per your talk" . 13:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Widefox: I don't have a problem with your reverting that edit. But generally one need not seek consensus before doing an edit, and that includes page moves. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure we're both aware of that, possibly you more than I as you've been around here so long - well done BTW. As for the merits of that article it seems slightly grey, but we have so many examples in caps, plus things like Hypertext Transfer Protocol, but I reverted out of caution and refrained from bumping the nav template to the lowercase in the meantime. It just seemed more than unjustified, more than bold, so I considered feedback for you useful. 23:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

## Last comment on this

WP:NCR. I blanked the AfD debate , in case you didn't notice, and it stuck. You are going to run out of friends very soon now. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: You seem to assume the only thing at stake here was the blanking of that page, rather than also where Wikipedia will go. And other topics were raised in the recent discussions. I know that I have many friends and most are probably unaware of recent discussions. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

## My response to DYK -- I can't figure out how to insert the text

Hi Michael, The DYK section seems to have a structure I'm unfamiliar with. I want to insert the following. You can also tell me if you have any suggestions. Thanks, --RJGray (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I wish to respond to your statement: "Indeed, I'm a little confused about how it passed the GA review, because though it's well written and I have no reasons to doubt its accuracy, the second half of "The development of Cantor's ideas" is completely unreferenced."

In the GA Review, the issue of references for derivations and examples did come up with respect to the section "The Proofs". The issue is the same as the one you are raising for the second half of "The development of Cantor's ideas" (in this half of the section, I am comparing the derivations in two different proofs). Here is how I handled the issue during the GA Review:

Concerning "The proofs": My approach was to stay within the guidelines of WP:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples, derivations and restatements whose first paragraph states:
"Wikipedia is neither a textbook nor a journal. Nonetheless, in mathematics and the mathematical sciences, it is frequently helpful to quote theorems, include simple derivations, and provide illustrative examples. For reasons of notation, clarity, consistency, or simplicity it is often necessary to state things in a slightly different way than they are stated in the references, to provide a different derivation, or to provide an example. This is standard practice in journals, and does not make any claim of novelty.[1] In Wikipedia articles this does not constitute original research and is perfectly permissible – in fact, encouraged – provided that a reader who reads and understands the references can easily see how the material in the Wikipedia article can be inferred. Furthermore, copying extensively from a source with only minor modifications is not normally permitted by copyright law, unless the source has a free license."

After receiving my response, the reviewer dropped this issue from his list of issues. --RJGray (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@RJGray: As far as I know, that about covers it. I'm not thoroughly familiar with the Good Article process. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I figured out how to insert my text into the DYK. Hopefully, this will resolve the issue the same as it was resolved in the GA Review. --RJGray (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

## Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Georg Cantor's first set theory article at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In response to your email Michael, it appears that the administrator who removed the hook from the queue forgot to restore the nomination to the nomination page. It's been done now, so somebody will get around to re-reviewing it now, hopefully soon. Gatoclass (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

## Blocked indefinitely

I've blocked you indefinitely for your continued personal attacks in the Who are our fellow Wikipedians? thread. Whenever you can convince another admin that you can return to editing Wikipedia without attacking your fellow editors, I have no problem with an unblock without further consultation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a distinct difference between WP:ADMINACCT and WP:POINT, not to mention WP:NOTTHEM. If you have a question that you don't already know the answer to, feel free to ask it here - not by email. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

## About your e-mails

First of all, stop e-mailing me. I don't think I have ever interacted with you prior to responding to your rather confused inquiry here unrelated to your current issue, so I am not exactly sure why you are demanding me to answer your "question" for "diffs" on why your claims are not actionable when it has been explained to you explicitly on countless occasions by a number of different editors ([6] [7]), all of which you have dismissed as "based only on falsehoods" ([8]), so I am not going to list them one by one as that is your opinion. And I see now you are trying to litigate a new claim based on JzG's summary of events on what has happened. Really? The AfD has been courtesy blanked, largely consistent with the philosophical approach proposed by Jimbo Wales here ([9]). What exactly are you looking for? Revdel? Oversight? None of these two are happening. Or are you looking for more explanations? If you cannot accept any explanation, it doesn't mean that these explanations are "false", it only means that you disagree with them, and that's okay. What is not okay is to continue to combatively accuse every single editor that disagree with you. Alex Shih (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet again your'e bringing up an issue that I have dropped. Do you want to provoke me, so that you can accuse me of not "dropping the stick", the way you did last time? I am not trying to get any more done with the now long-since blanked AfD page, yet you bring it up yet another time. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

## De-escalation

Hi Michael, A couple of things:

• Please stop emailing people. If anyone else reports an unwanted email, I'll have to change the block to prevent emailing. To be clear, I do not want an email.
• In my opinion, it might be a good idea to walk away for a day or two, then come back and discuss calmly on this talk page.
• It would be wonderful if everyone could step away from the brink. Easier said than done, I know; I've been on the brink myself.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

## September 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 17:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This is not a re-block, it's removal of email privileges, as you keep sending unsolicited and unwelcome emails. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

## Unblock

Okay, first, since it wasn't explained, the above template was issued to you automatically when an admin disabled your email access. You still have access to edit this page, and you may do so to appeal the block at any time. All we're looking for is an indication that you will simply drop the accusations you're making and move on. This block is indefinite, which means it can be as short as you want it to be. You just have to submit an unblock request here, saying you'll stop making accusations against other editors. I know you think they're credible accusations, but they're really not. You were treated unfairly at AN, yes. You were subjected to incivility, personal attacks, refusal to have your points acknowledged, and refusal to engage in discussion, all of which are policy violations, all of which went ignored because the users were established. Yes, that's a real thing that happens, in spite of WP:NVC. That's a courtesy you yourself are privy to as well, which just goes to show how excessively far you have taken things in order to have ended up blocked. And yes, as soon as you pointed out that no one presented any counter-arguments, the thread was shut down. That was wrong. The handling of that thread was botched, it looks like some admins jumped in on the side of the commenting users without much thought, rendering you summarily dismissed without consideration. You were not in the wrong to ignore the thread. The editors who claimed you deserved to be banned or desysopped for "ignoring consensus" were misrepresenting what happened in the thread. So, I apologize for your experience there. There are many things we could have and should have done differently, and I don't blame you for being suspicious of the users' motives. It's understandable. However, as I said, I think your suspicions are flatly wrong. Those users who insulted you and stonewalled you at AN? They're just AN regulars. As an admin who regularly works AN and AN/I, I recognize all of them. They're all trusted, established editors in good standing. They didn't organize and mobilize specifically to derail your thread. That doesn't make their behavior okay, but I'm certain it was less malicious than you interpreted it to be. It's literally known as the "drama boards". People get bitten like you did there, all the time. It sucks, but at the same time, it shouldn't matter, because you got what you wanted and no one's trying to continue it. You just needed to move on. Nobody from that AN thread actually cares enough to dwell on this, and nobody is holding a grudge against you. Everything has other things going on. You're the only one who hasn't let it go. Just draw the line here, tell us you're going to be letting it go, that you're willing and able to move on, no more accusations, etc. WP:GAB really spells it out if you want to make sure you check all the boxes, but no one is trying to keep you blocked. Just resign yourself to dropping the accusations, and move on. 𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 𝔛 23:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I have entirely "dropped the stick" as far as the page I wanted blanked is concerned. Alex Shih several times brought it up again with provocative comments to which I responded, and then accused me of unwillingness to drop the stick. Simple honesty requires at the least that that tactic be forbidden.
I will gladly undertake not to bring that up again.
The general climate of bullying and prevalence of manipulative tactics like the one just mentioned are major problems that need to be addressed.
And no one has addressed Guy Macon's false claims to expertise in certain areas, as when he said conferences at which professors present their research to each other are "unquestionably commercially lucrative" (when they're addressing each other and not the general public), or when he made assertions about pseudoscience without even hinting at a reason for those. At the very least. I will leave that alone if he will just honestly admit these are things he's not an expert on.
You mentioned that I can still edit this page, and now, as you can see, I can, but a few hours ago I could not, when others were posting here and asking me questions and suggesting that I was trying to continue to pursue matters that I have dropped.
The general climate of the Administrators' Noticeboards needs to get looked into closely and extensively – the fact that a few clique leaders dominate certain things and sanctimoniously demand compliance with rules that they flout – the ways in which they have become corrupt. That can all be done without going into the one matter that brought this up on this one occasion. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You didn't drop the stick though. You opened Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 59#Who are our fellow Wikipedians? nearly two weeks after the AN drama died down. Although you claimed you were merely "seeking information", you were also continuing to complain about the group of specific editors who showed up at your AN thread, and re-asserted the implications that they were in some way organized (assessing them as "a Wikipedian and his followers"), or that they appear to have some sort of suspicious motivation or identity beneath the surface ("I want to know who these people are ... Their refusal to argue or discuss the issues with fellow Wikipedians is an occasion for suspicion"). That kind of personal commentary, in which you make accusations without being able to prove it, is called casting aspersions, and it's considered to be no different from a personal attack. Above are some more examples, you're naming names and then making accusations. Still personal attacks. 𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 𝔛 02:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Michael, I'm not saying this simply to criticize you, or to suggest that you don't have entirely legitimate reasons for having grievances against editors. But, right now, my focus is getting you unblocked, and complaining about other people isn't going to help that, per WP:NOTTHEM. The first step is to make sure we're on the same page as to what the problem actually is, so you can indicate that you understand it. So, you're blocked for personal attacks and aspersions. It's important to understand that discussing your fellow editors in any sort of way that can be perceived as negative or critical is a "personal attack", even if you're not wrong. The only exception is making formal behavioral complaints in an administrative setting, with a request for some sort of sanction or administrative action. Likewise, even in a formal administrative setting, making accusations, or speculations, or implications about your fellow editors, without providing proof, is "casting aspersions", even if your accusations are true. So, the point here is, you may believe that everything you said is true, and needed to be said, and that's fine. But, you also need to understand why it was a violation of policy that resulted in this block. So, no more on-wiki complaints or accusations or venting about against specific editors, unless in a formal administrative discussion, and with evidence provided. That's it. We just need to see you indicate that you understand 'what you did wrong' and will avoid doing it again. You're not the only guilty party here, and I'm not asking you to admit to being completely in the wrong. But, standard unblocking procedure simply requires you to check these boxes. So, we just need to here those two things from you, and we'll unblock you without further delay:
1. Indicate that you understand what the aforementioned violations were.
2. Indicate that you will not continue to make the aforementioned complaints or accusations in inappropriate forums and without providing evidence.
No one's trying to see you remain blocked for an extended period of time, and if you need any further clarification feel free to ping me. I know it feels like you're being forced to jump through hoops, but please, just do these things so we don't have to keep you blocked any longer than necessary. 𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 𝔛 16:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are some diffs from the AN:

[10] Aspersion against MH

[11] Personal attack against MH

[12] Endorsement of personal attack against MH

[13] Claim of "bullying" against MH, without any diffs or evidence, equating another personal attack

I can understand from reading the thread and the linked diffs how MH would react the way he did. Now, unfortunately, to be unblocked he will have to make the admissions indications that Swarm requested, which completely overlooks any of the reasons we ended up here in the first place. Sadly, that is how Wikipedia works. MH - sorry you are in this position, but please know that some of us really appreciate what you are doing, and have done, around here. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I actually don't think MH needs to make any admissions at all - I think all he has to do is agree to drop the issue (with an agreement to disagree being fine). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: I'm not sure what "admissions" you're referring to. It's like you didn't even read anything I wrote. I'm just trying to get MH to do the bare minimum so we can unblock him. I also can't remotely comprehend how you can claim that I "completely overlook any of the reasons we ended up here", when I'm just about the only admin who's extensively talking about how MH was wronged and I sympathize with him. I even gave him an apology for the treatment he received. I don't know why you're giving me grief, when I'm taking time out of my day and taking the initiative to actually get this user unblocked as quickly and easily as possible. 𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 𝔛 18:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Swarm. I'm sorry if my comment gave that impression - I really think you've done an excellent job digging into this issue about why we are here. I think "admission" was the wrong word choice for me to use - you used "Indicate." The "admissions" that I referred to would be that MH is supposed to "admit" he understands what the violations were and not make them again. So, admission was the wrong word for me to use. I do think you've laid the issues out very clearly, but what I understand MH to have such difficulty with is the behavior of certain editors has never been addressed any of his complaints adequately. Every single time he tried to raise the issues he was drowned out by comments like "enough time wasting," "how are you still an admin," and "drop this immediately." Again, thank you for being willing to take this on, and I hope we can resolve it and move forward. To Michael - please accept that the editor behavior that you describe above will NOT be addressed to your satisfaction. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC) (sign and re-ping Swarm).
@Mr Ernie: I mean, the "indications" I'm asking for is just basic WP:GAB process, along with reiterating what the blocking admin asked for. I'm not trying to make MH jump through hoops just because I want to. That's just what the stated condition for unblocking is. The alternative, which I suppose you would advocate for, is to take the position that it's an unnecessary block, and that it should be lifted outright, with no burden on MH to do anything. The reason this is not an option is because the block is undergoing community review, so making a unilateral judgment on the merits of the block would be inappropriate. The community can overturn the block outright, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen, so I'm just going by our standard operating procedure and the blocking admin's instruction. I'm not asking for anything more than the bare minimum from MH, I am trying to resolve this in the most painless way possible for him. 𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 𝔛 20:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that given the proper forum to express your frustrations you will WP:Drop the stick in other inappropriate locations. Can you agree to discuss generalized problems concerning AN as a process at User talk:Jimbo Wales (without naming specific editors), or if you wish to make a complaint about the actions of specific editors against the consensus at AN should be discussed at WP:ARC? That way, any problems you might have (either with the process of AN or complaints about the actions of specific editors) can be discussed in the appropriate forum. And I am hopeful if you agree to that, that the admins will unblock you (I'm not an admin, so I cannot make that guarantee.) -Obsidi (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I have agreed to drop the issues related to the AfD page that has been blanked. That doesn't mean I will not hold that the policy against personal attacks is primarily used to protect dishonest people and bullies, or that there are not cliques of bullies on noticeboards, or that there are not prevailing modes of behavior in regulatory parts of Wikipedia that are deeply corrupt. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone cares if you continue to hold those opinions or not. I'm sure there are many people that agree with you. But the questions is how and where you will express those opinions on WP. -Obsidi (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, simply because MH doesn't name names doesn't mean that making those claims isn't WP:Casting aspersions. In fact, in a way it's worse, as it encourage other editors to fill in MH's blanks with whatever editors they feel fit his description. My thought is that MH should not be allowed to make these claims, about "corruption" and "bullying" and "dishonesty" without making specific charges against specific people that are backed up with specific evidence. Anything else is a gross violation of the Fourth Pillar "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility." Saying that there are "cliques of bullies on noticeboards" is hardly civil or collegial, nor is it the kind of behavior we expect from an admin, so I'm opposed to MH being unblocked until he agrees not to make these broad unsupported sweeping allegations of malfeasance and misbehavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I've requested clarification of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions on this point from ArbCom, any who wish to comment on this are free to do so here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. If Michael Hardy, wishes to comment, please let me know. -Obsidi (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Whilst that may end up being a useful clarification, it's irrelevant to this situation, as MH did name the editors he was casting aspersions about here. So, I assume you are talking about things like "a few clique leaders dominate certain things and sanctimoniously demand compliance with rules that they flout" from the section just above. Well, ceasing comments like that will obviously be part of the conditions of MH's unblocking; I am agreement with Swarm below - as soon as MH agrees to drop the stick completely and totally on this one - including comments like the above, unless starting an ArbCom case if he so wishes - an unblock is then reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan, JzG, and Boing! said Zebedee: Is the above statement satisfactory to anyone? It's coming across to me as some sort of insincere half-measure. I'm really going out of my way to try and help you here, Michael. You really can't bring yourself to make the simple statements I'm trying to coax out of you?? I'm ready to unblock you now. Right now. But you're really coming across as being obstinate. Maybe one of the other admins will disagree. But I feel like I'm making a pretty strenuous effort to resolve this in your favor, and you're not really trying to help yourself. 𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 𝔛 05:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't care what opinions Michael Hardy holds, but I want to hear that he is going to drop the repeated accusations which he has been making in multiple forums. The exception is if he wishes to raise a formal case in an appropriate forum, with proper evidence in the form of diffs. As AN/ANI and the community process at large is a major part of the accusations, I think ArbCom is the only place such a case would be appropriate. So I'd want to see an agreement to either raise a case at ArbCom or simply drop the accusations. Saying only "I have agreed to drop the issues related to the AfD page that has been blanked" would not be sufficient for me to unblock. (I also want to thank User:Swarm here for putting in this effort to make it as easy as possible for Michael Hardy to get unblocked.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
It's Sarek's block, I only disabled email (for reasons that should be clear above). Guy (Help!) 07:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
As I said, as soon as another admin was convinced the problems would not recur, there was no need to check with me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
So down to Swarm's judgment, which is fine by me. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Same here. Whether or not I'd unblock, I'm happy for someone else to decide and I won't complain either way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

To follow up on what Boing! said Zebedee said, I am happy to unblock Michael if he can clarify the following : "That doesn't mean I will not hold that the policy against personal attacks is primarily used to protect dishonest people and bullies, or that there are not cliques of bullies on noticeboards, or that there are not prevailing modes of behavior in regulatory parts of Wikipedia that are deeply corrupt." Do you mean you still hold these opinions, and cannot change your mind? Well, that's fine, we're all allowed to have our own personal opinions and views. Or do you mean you will continue to raise points of order about perceived bullying, corruption and malfeasance on the administrative noticeboards? If so, I'm afraid I can't entertain an unblock. I've got opinions on more than a few admins; some are positive, some are not - but pretty much all of it stays inside my head as much as possible, as complaining about why 'x' shouldn't be an admin on ANI with all guns blazing is completely and utterly counter-productive. To give a really obvious example, I don't think Donald Trump should be President (you can kind of work that out from looking at my user page) but jumping up and down outside the White House shouting "Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!" won't make it happen! The community understands your point of view, and is aware of it - there's no need to bring it up again. Stick to articles, and in particular get Georg Cantor's first set theory article passed through DYK and onto the main page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

What? Since when has been saying 'ANI sucks' -- 'filled with imcompetance, nastiness, lies, and bullying' been anything other than just and righteous? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not what Ritchie is saying. Writing "ANI sucks" isn't a particular issue. However, compare instead the quote I mentioned above ("a few clique leaders dominate certain things and sanctimoniously demand compliance with rules that they flout") and then consider writing it - or similar - over and over (and over) again at multiple venues. The two are radically different. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Clique behavior is hardly an unreasonable way for anyone to fairly describe things that happen on Admin Boards (as anyone who has seen teenagers in shifting cliques would know). Also, it would be surpiseing, if things like that are not said over and over again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure they are. Just not by the same person, at that frequency, after they've been asked multiple times to stop it. The text of WP:IDHT was written almost exactly for this situation. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
That is silly. Saying someone can't say it again would just be arbitrary and extremely odd --saying AN has clique behavior is about as anodyne a statement as there is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Just noting that I've been following this too, especially since Michael emailed me a little while ago (not since he was told to stop emailing people) and we had a short conversation. I, too, would be happy to unblock, under condition. Mine would be quite simple - he agrees to stop raising the incident at ANI at any forum except a request for arbitration. That includes veiled discussions of the topic, such as general discussions of bullying or poor behaviour, as it is clear what he is referring to. My hope is that he would then focus his attention back on his excellent article work. I would also be open to discussion by email if he feels something might need to be raised at an administrative noticeboard but would prefer not to. WormTT(talk) 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It is asked whether I will drop some accusations. If that means agreeing not to mention them after this, unless in an Arbitration Committee proceeding or the like, I will do that. If it means recanting truthful assertions of fact, honesty requires that I have a specific reason to do so in each case.

What has happened appears to me to be this:

• At least one user failed to understand that his (possibly extensive) knowledge of the marketing of fad diets to the public does not apply to meetings at which professors present their research findings to each other, since that is a different thing. Therefore they wanted to accuse those professors of using the standard terminology of their fields only to create a false impression of legitimacy, saying without evidence that they do not collaborate with other professors in research or do not publish in conventional journals.
• At least six users thought I was disrespecting what they consider to be the authority and expertise of those who said that. Therefore they would not argue, discuss, instruct, or otherwise engage in reasoning with me, but only required me to submit to the supposed authorities.
• I called the latter bullies because they behaved that way. I consider that an accusation; others consider that an insult or a personal attack.
• Many accusations were made against me, by persons not considering those accusations to be insults or personal attacks of the sort forbidden by the policy against personal attacks.
• As I said I will agree to say no more after this about these particular events on reasonable conditions unless in formal proceedings before the Arbitration Committee or the like, but it is important to continue to address certain serious problems:, including the cesspool of corruption and bullying and power games that is the Administrators' Noticeboards and some similar situations, and the double standard that calls some people's accusations personal attacks and regards others as righteously enforcing standards, and the pretense of upholding standards while in fact trying to protect the dishonest or to play power games. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I didnt ask for you to recant, or remove anything you said, just to not mention going forward, save for an arbcom case.... your statement above repeats the exact things I and others are asking you to stop saying, not due to their validity but the venue. The manner you are addressing matters does nothing but make you look pigheaded, and people stop listening. To be clear, was your ;last statement on the matter your last statement? WormTT(talk) 20:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
(ec) To be honest, Michael, you're just describing human nature. You can see politics, power grabbing, double standards and corruption in all walks of life, from the Milgram Experiment to the Stanford prison experiment, any number of banana republics, or any local homeowners association or (in the US) church group. May I recommend watching the excellent video "Rules for Rulers". Expecting to be able to overthrow what appears to be natural human behaviour just isn't realistic, and it's not too surprising you've been met with hostility, as what you want doesn't align with what other people want.
So, to be clear, before I unblock, I want an unamibigous statement like this : "I will not mention these things on Wikipedia again, I am sorry for upsetting people, and I resolve to focus on improving the encyclopedia". Seriously, just apologise for getting up people's noses. It doesn't cost anything to do, and will go a long way to restoring your respect in the community. And don't say "I will not mention these things on Wikipedia again, but by the way I thought six users were mean to me and ANI is corrupt and stinks of power-grabbing and politics...." We get it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
He's already promised, as asked, not to repeat the allegations outside proper venues. Now you're asking something more which loosely translated is "Submit. Demonstrate our power over you publicly." For what it's worth, in any context except wikipedia that would be condemned as sociopathy. 2A01:7C8:AAB2:30E:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
No, that's what you think it translates to. And if you think it doesn't happen in any other context, find a forum full of Trump voters and try a reasoned conversation with them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this page got on my watchlist - but I've blocked the range the IP above belongs to as it's a webhost (TransIP out of the NL, a VPS / Cloud service provider) SQLQuery me! 22:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I have said I will not raise this episode again unless in an Arbitration Committee proceeding or something of that nature. I will not apologize for upsetting people and there is no reason why I should. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

A shame, had you apologised I would have unblocked you right now. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you not find it even the least bit embarrassing to try to coax people into writing coerced dishonest apologies? Will you claim to be a guardian of Wikipedia's standards when you behave like that? If you were to unblock me after I lied the way you want me to, nothing would be left of either of us. I have been scrupulously honest and polite throughout this episode. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, I can't recall another time I've seen a Wikipedian urging another to be dishonest in Wikipedia edits, besides this. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure forced apologies make any sense here. I'm inclined to unblock after this clear agreement to drop this particular dispute forever. I haven't been following this as closely as I'd have liked, but I wonder what Michael, and others, think about the idea of Michael being able to pursue the issue of the ANI environment in some non-Arb location, with the caveat that he is not allowed to use his experience as an example at all. If it is as bad as he says (*cough* it is *cough*), it should be easy to find examples that don't make everyone's eyes roll back in their heads. Michael what do you think? Swarm? It's not an inherently bad subject to bring up somewhere, although the odds of something useful coming out of such a discussion aren't very good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
That would be a good idea except that it has a fatal flaw, namely that it sets Michael Hardy up for a fall because it is clear that he has no understanding of the problem (which is that consensus, even if wrong, should be respected, combined with the fact that if only one person can see evil, perhaps it's not as bad as they imagine). Any discussion by MH that could vaguely be connected with this fuss would immediately be derailed by unhelpful commentary on the history and observations about personal judgment. It would be far kinder for MH to resume editing with a commitment to not refer to anything that might be seen as being related to the problem unless at arbitration. Editors are never required to offer an apology as Wikipedia operates on the pragmatic basis that no one cares what individuals think—what counts is on-wiki behavior. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I appreciate your sentiments, but this notion that if only one person admits to being able to see evil, that indicates something, is worse than worthless garbage. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
At an intellectual level what you say is correct, namely that group think (with a due nod to The Wisdom of Crowds) is no substitute for careful analysis and accuracy. However, Wikipedia is not a forum where discussions are pursued until truth prevails. Rightly or wrongly, consensus has reached certain conclusions regarding the background at issue here, and efforts to discuss related matters will only lead to disruption. No one is at fault—that's just the way Wikipedia is. I don't mind expanding via email but I will resist the urge to further express opinions on-wiki because that makes everyone want to join in. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean, I believe that he won't bring up that specific incident again, because that's what he's being forced to do, but it sort of seems like he wants to prolong the drama by continuing to generically discuss the "problem" at AN, when we all know what exactly he's referring to. He still doesn't really appear willing to drop the stick. But, at least he's honest about it. If this is all he's going to give, it's a valid question as to whether we just accept it and unblock him, or leave him blocked long-term. If you're inclined to unblock, I'm fine with it, and I'd be inclined to agree with that option. Michael's a Wikipedia Old God. He's earned the rope. Also, it's worth considering that it's not the world's biggest violation here. He got beat up at AN and he's salty about it. Let him vent about the toxic culture at VP or something. As long as there's no aspersions or personal attacks or rehashing of the incident, I'm fine with it. (Swarmtalk) 04:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Michael has said that he "will not raise this episode again unless in an Arbitration Committee proceeding or something of that nature" - and this time he has finally said it without then immediately raising it again, which is progress. There's no need to add any non-Arbcom discussion option, and definitely no need to require an apology. Let's just leave it at what's been agreed and not complicate things further. I support an unblock now, with no further conditions or wrangling. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

## Unblocked

After looking at the above discussion, I think there is a clear and emerging consensus that leaving you blocked is just leading to more hand-wringing and drama (and I don't mean from you). So, given the blocking administrators have given consent ahead of time, and other administrators have supported lifting the block, you are now unblocked. As you were. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ritchie333. I'd logged off for the night before Michael's statement, I appreciate you making the call. WormTT(talk) 08:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I don't contest your reading of consensus, but speaking as one of the "six dishonest cowardly bullies", I would have been happier if Michael Hardy had seen fit to formally withdraw the statements he made about myself and my five compatriots, instead of simply pledging not to repeat them. I don't give a farthing about an apology, but a withdrawal would, I think, have shown that he has actually moved on, and isn't just saying what needs to be said to be unblocked.
Of course, it's never too late to withdraw those statements, Michael Hardy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Was there one among those six who was not unwilling to discuss or argue or instruct or explain? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Heads up, I've removed another webhost-using IP, based on edits to this page. SQLQuery me! 23:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

## ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Michael Hardy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

## ARCA archived

An amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

## Uncapitalised names of games: policy?

Thank you for your improvement to the maths formatting in Cooling and heating (combinatorial game theory). I see that at the same time you altered the names of games such as Go, Blockbusting (game) and Domineering to remove capitalisation. Since this conflicts with the convention of capitalising names of games as followed on the pages Combinatorial game theory, Go, Domineering & Nim and in books such as On Numbers and Games & Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays, I wondered whether there were guidelines were that you were following and if there is a consensus on this matter. Unless there is, I should like to change them back to conform to the above convention; this applies to the articles Elwyn Berlekamp, Cooling and heating (combinatorial game theory) & Blockbusting (game). PJTraill (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I saw no reply from you and the convention is so well-established I have edited the three articles. PJTraill (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

## My recent ping to you

Hi Michael. I just pinged you here. I urge you to either not comment there, or to be extremely cautious and avoid saying any of the things that others so vigorously objected to in the past and blocked you for. I pinged you both because I mentioned you, and because I wanted you to be aware of the discussion about a problem I think we both agree on. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

However, there is one positive thing I think you can do: As an admin, you can go to noticeboards like WP:AN/I, WP:AE and be a voice of reason against harassment, incivility, bullying, etc. against other editors if you see it. We need neutral editors to weigh in. There are, in my opinion, far too few neutral editors and admins at the noticeboards. Please don't do it because I recommended it, but because you believe there is no justification for harassment, incivility, and bullying at Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

## Curse of Ham

"Uncovering his father's nakedness" probably means that Ham had intercourse with his father's wife (referring to Leviticus 18:7 ff). That's what the mainstream sources say (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica). Like many other articles, curse of Ham has much text but little information. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

## Just an FYI

In the event you are interested, I have asked Swarm on his TP to modify his Close wherein he reprimanded those of us who disagreed. Atsme✍🏻📧 20:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

## Your submission at Articles for creation: Dixon algebra has been accepted

Dixon algebra, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you addressed this to the wrong person. I edited that page, but only edited. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

MH - is the article accurate? It's in the NPP queue, and needs to be reviewed so it would be a big help if you can offer a bit of guidance. Atsme✍🏻📧 21:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Michael Hardy - Welcome to messages from Twinkle. The message was generated by a script. Occasionally it addresses the message to someone who edited the article. Reviewers often get messages that another reviewer has tagged the article for deletion, which it wasn't their article in the first place. You have a message that the article was accepted, and it wasn't your article. This sometimes happens. The script sometimes does this. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

## Expert advice

Hi, Michael - your expert advice is needed at Draft:Aitchison Geometry - is it accurate, and properly sourced? Atsme✍🏻📧 10:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

## LateX question

Somehow I screwed up your talk page (don't know why). Can you please look into the history of the talk page and check out the question about how to denote H\G/K I posed there? Thanks! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

## Another question

Is John Aitchison the one who developed the framework for Aitchison geometry? I’m doing a bit of Wikignoming over there to eliminate the tags. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)