User talk:Mathsci/Archive 26

Your e-mail

Received, I did think that might be the case. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mathsci. You have new messages at Virago250's talk page.
Message added 02:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Mathsci. You have new messages at Mtking's talk page.
Message added 04:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mtking ^(edits) 04:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah.aissa (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have one question, How can I change the title of an article? I forget to put an uppercase. Thank you in advance for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah.aissa (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Mathsci. You have new messages at Noleander's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Templating my talk page

I appreciate your concern and I'm well aware of 3R rule. But in the future, could you please not template my talk page as it can be perceived as an aggressive gesture Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Handling_of_edit_warring_behaviors. We have interacted long enough that I hope you would be comfortable enough to just leave a note. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you have reverted three times in the space of less than 12 hours. If you revert a fourth time and a report is made on WP:AN3, it is a requirement that you should have been notified. The template is standard. The passage you cite concerning warnings about edit warring applies to those involved in the edit war, if you read it carefully. If you check, my two edits to the article "evolution" were on 24 and 30 August. I am not editing the article at the moment, but I have made one comment on the talk page recently. Please stop posting aggressive messages on my user talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The passage I cited includes, "Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down." In any event, I obviously failed to get through to you. Oh well. Have a nice life. danielkueh (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is good style not to template the regulars, but post personal messages. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, after 3 reverts by Danielkueh, you should have posted some kind of explicit warning yourself about edit warring instead of just using an edit summary.[1] Danielkueh, please could you stay away from my talk page if you feel you need to resort to thinly veiled saracsm ("Have a nice life"). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Article on Swami Budhpuri Ji rewritten

Hi Mathsci, the concerned article has been rewritten. Your review is awaited. Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Budhpuri_Ji/Temp and give your suggestions for possible improvements...thanks...Svechu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Context is everything

I noticed your complaint at the Arbcom enforcement page about Malleus, and I also noticed you had mentioned me there, without providing any diffs. Were you aware of this comment from MONGO from 5 September? If not it might be worth looking at it and considering amending your statement in light of this evidence that at least one (prominent and previously-sanctioned) American editor has started the ball rolling in the nationalism stakes. MONGO has never properly explained what exactly he was on about there, but it seems ridiculous to threaten Malleus with sanctions but not mention the antecedent behavior. Regarding my own behavior there, I have found the degree of resistance of the "Defenders of the Wiki" crowd to an article assessment process (that they themselves invited) quite frustrating at times, but I hope that if you feel anything I said there crossed the line, you would have the courtesy to raise it with me in the first instance rather than on an enforcement page. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed any reference to you despite this diff in your response to MF.[2] I'm sure you meant the US government there which is why I put the comment in parentheses. I think your own editing on Talk:September 11 attacks has been exemplary. I haven't looked at any comments on your talk page. But if you have evidence that there is editor bias or bullying related to the article following the request for a GAR, the best idea is probably to present that yourself, particularly if it's spread over several wikipedia pages. Mathsci (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I appreciate it. The diff you mention took place during a discussion about the cultural sensitivities around the topic of 9/11, started by Karanacs' proposed new structure for the article, my suggestion of redrafting the article, MONGO "we're not going to marginalize the event itself with a slurry of POV pushing background junk", Karanacs "implies to me that there is an unstated goal here of presenting a non-POV article; one that offers Proper Memorialization and shows the accepted US POV." MF agreed and so did (and do) I, that this is a problem with improving the article. It shouldn't be outrageous in the context of discussing that article to discuss the very strong emotional grip that this event still has (indeed I would argue for including it in the article, but that's another story). You are right however to make the distinction between US government and "American"; that is something I would rephrase another time. Thank you for taking the time to examine this and I hope you might feel able to help out if we are ever to move this matter forwards; the article feels like it has been stuck since about 2006, and I hope Karanacs' and Malleus's comments in their different ways will help to move us on. I wouldn't be putting time into it if I didn't feel there was some chance of ending up with an improved article on this important topic. Meantime, MONGO continues to vent on another editor's talk page. I really think that if there is to be Arbcom enforcement it should start with him. But that, too, is another story. --John (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a US POV? From a UK perspective there are the Lockerbie bombing and the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Although disasters on quite different scales, the way the three articles are written should not be vastly different, if it's possible to be objective. I don't normally edit current affairs articles, although I did help a little on the Sheffield incest case. Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be my stance too. These type of events are very jarring and produce great waves of emotion around them, making it difficult sometimes to hit the right tone. Of the articles you mention, I've done quite a lot on the first one and only a little on the second. Neither is a GA or an FA but to me they get the tone about right. I think (and multiple other reviewers at the GAR agree) that the 9/11 article takes too "official" a tone and does not adequately explore things like alternative theories, antecedents and consequences. Both the UK articles you mention do this (arguably do it too much), but the 9/11 article does not do it at all. Off to look at the incest one now, I am not even familiar with that story. --John (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, it's a horrible story, but a very nice article. --John (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Having read the current GA reassessment, my personal view is that the regular editors on the article at the moment are not being reasonable about adding some mention of conspiracy theories in the article. If a serious book devotes 3 or 4 pages to describing and dismissing them, wikipedia editors should be able to craft a short paragraph summarising that content without entering into detail about individual theories. Wikilawyering against the inclusion of non-trivial content in secondary sources is against core policy. The recent flair up, which hopefully has now subsided, seems to have been a result of regular editors' unwillingness to yield this point combined with Malleus' overreaction. Matters will calm down once EyeSerene closes the GA reassessment, although it is hard to say whether it will help solve any of the outstanding problems with the article pointed out by Geometry Guy. Mathsci (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Aaronkauf

Hi Mathsci,

Per this user's talk page as well as the fact that no action was taken, I've unarchived the ANI report here. N^oformation ^Talk 19:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your tidy up of Annie Dunne Cheers The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomaskirche

For a picture of Bach's church with the organ loft see there or Thomanerchor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your page. There were two organs in the church (the second a "swallow's nest organ"). The current organ is a modern instrument. Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. Seems too complicated for a picture caption. If it matters for that article I would place it in the text, and/or to the composer/church. We agree that there isn't "The organ loft"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Europe

Dear Mathsci,

I noticed that you deleted many times revisions done by me. Now, I would like to explain several things.

1. European Bison is an animal living in 2 natural reserves in Poland and Belarus: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_bonasus_distribution.svg when you undid my revision, an old version of Poland, Belarus... Russia (which is somewhere else http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/eunewneb.gif; no reason to mention it) and Eastern Europe (no reason to mention it).

2. Last but not least. European Subdivision is a very vague topic: Eastern, Western, Central Europe change meanings quite relatively. This has to deal with many reasons. At the end these divisions are vague. Between the 1945-1990 it was relatively easy, still Turkey, Greece, Cyprus and Malta were confusing but we had Western and Eastern Europe for some time. Nowadays subdivisions very that much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe (at least 5 similar definitions); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe (again, at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe (at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Europe (at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe (at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Europe (at least 2 definitions) As you see, all of them are context dependent. It doesn't help that there are also old subdivisions (which we tend to bring back to life as they reflect the continent's complexity more): http://fc00.deviantart.com/fs42/f/2009/122/f/7/Europe_Division_by_JJohnson1701.png; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Central_Europe,_814.jpg; http://historyoftheancientworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/17th-century-map-of-Europe.jpg Although this model (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grossgliederung_Europas-en.svg) is pursued much in media: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1035212.stm (see Switzerland as a part of Central Europe and compare to other countries); http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2002/aug/26/naturaldisasters.climatechange; and European Institutions: http://www.ceinet.org/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Initiative and Un institutions: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/map/index.php Nowadays there are Unitarian tendencies in Europe: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2000.00409.x/abstract As a European I can tell you that geographical adjective has a derogatory meaning, like Eastern Europe, hence it tends to be not used, especially after the Fall of Communism in the continent.

In addition to all that we have the Western Civilisation concept: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png As well as religions (yet influential to some extent): http://westciv2.umwblogs.org/files/2010/01/Europe_religion_map_en6-1024x833.png

Now I hope you will not delete my revisions. I hope I explained well my position :)

As you can see, the Fall of Communism brought not only new opportunities butt also re-discovery to Europeans after 45 years of separation. Of course I understand that outside Europe you use old sub-divisions, even these Cold war ones.

Kind regards, --Rejedef (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I count on your help, too. Europe changed since 1990. It changed a lot. --Rejedef (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rejedef, if you want to proceed with what seems like a number of changes, post each specific change on the Europe talkpage, with the short explanation. That will clarify it, and allow opposition or support to be much clearer than seeing a huge number of changes at once. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Rejedef: Please do not use my talk page instead of the article talk page: that is not helpful to other users. The reasoning provided so far for changes has not been persuasive. Since I have been on wikibreak, I have not had time to check wikipedia, except very intermittently. I had independently come to the same conclusion as Chipmunkdavis. Please propose any desired changes one by one on the talk page (not all together!), providing secondary sources in English which use the phraseology you are proposing. Everything you propose must be backed by a reliable source and not general arguments. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466

He is a supporter of the image filer. Check out the fr.wiki poll talk page: fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Sondage/Installation d'un Filtre d'image. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, Sue Gardner's report explicitly mentioned Muhammad's images: m:Image filter referendum/Sue's report to the board/en. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this blog entry is pretty amusing, especially in the comments, where someone proposes an Islamic filter to auto-add PBUH after each mention of Muhammad, to decrease offense even further. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that Jayen466 is a translator living in Cambridge. How does that tie in with what you have posted here? Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You seemed rather confused about his motivation for involving himself in the Muhammad issue [3]. The last sentence I posted (on PBUH) is indeed unrelated, I just though you'd find it mildly amusing. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it quite like that. My perception is that Jayen466 has spent a lot of time nibbling at the edges of wikipedia policy. Mathsci (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Mathsci, further to Wikipedia:Ani#Epilogue:_Light_in_our_darkness, please note discussion of some further ideas on how to incorporate the Night Journey image here on my talk. Best, --JN466 02:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

gimmetoo

gimmetoo - who closed that ANI mess - is an alternate account of User:Gimmetrow, who is a sysop. Just so you know. --Ludwigs2 23:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

You not only reopen a discussion by removing the close tags, but by pulling it from the archive, meaning it had sat on ANI long enough to be archived. And you didn't bother to inform me? And you want the thread re-reviewed? Are you sure you want that? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As my posting on ANI states, the problem arose from your use of a not very well labelled alternative account instead of your principal account. I usually check administrator status by double clicking on contributions and user rights if it is not marked on the user page (as a category or otherwise). In your case, at the time I posted I had not noticed the link to Gimmetrow (I apologize for that oversight). Having unarchived the thread and having subsequently pointed out my error there)with a reference to Ludwigs2's post (intially unsigned), I saw no harm in leaving the thread unarchived. (I doubt I would have done anything at all if Ludwigs2 had not resumed his activities, lobbying ArbCom for a second time.) The confusion arose from your use of two accounts, which I still find confusing: you usually use the main account when acting as an administrator.[4] The thread will be archived automatically in 24 hours; usually ANI threads of this type are placed on a specially created subpage (Slrubenstein, Pmanderson, etc). Mathsci (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reasons for the alt account, but that's not the business here. You should have informed me at some point when you pulled that thread from archives. Why didn't you? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you being so heavy? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Gimmetrow (do you mind if I call you that?), so far you have not posted any kind of clarification on your main account page about your alternative accounts. What you have posted so far on this page seems needlessly aggressive. If you feel that you have some kind of justified grievance, could I please suggest that you take that up directly with the arbitration committee, perhaps by requesting a new case? Otherwise could you please stop posting what in my view seem like bullying messages on my talk page? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

G2 seems to be really grumpy at the moment [5]. Weirdly, he doesn't seem to edit as Gt any more. Even more weirdly, he blocks people as Gt and then puts block messages on as G2, e.g. User_talk:Max_curse William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

BW's possible socks

Hello again Mathsci. I saw that you opened a new SPI on an IP that appeared to be editing like BelloWello. Out of curiousity, why didn't you include Wercvbnmghkjb (talk · contribs) or Eraoihp (talk · contribs)? There's certainly some similar editing patterns and I know you have suspicions about these accounts.--Kubigula (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In the report I said I was not sure that the two IPs were BelloWello, since there are several SDA universities/colleges in California. I am pretty sure of one of the other two named accounts because of evidence from the image files (the exact model of camera). One of the problems has been the relocation to California, which for a period could complicate SPI reports. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Shahnameh

The Shahnameh image could go into Commons, couldn't it? --JN466 09:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Grunsky matrix

At Grunsky matrix, I changed contraction operatora (with a final "a") to contraction operators (with an "s"). I also changed Lebedev-Milin inequality (with a hyphen) to Lebedev–Milin inequality (with an en-dash) and z₁ (with the "1" italicized) to z₁ (with a non-italicized 1). The first change corrected a typo and the others are required by WP:MOS and WP:MOSMATH respectively. (Note that z_N with the N in italics is correct. Italics are used for variables, but not for digits or punctuation, etc. That is consistent with TeX style and prescribed by WP:MOSMATH.) Apparently in the course of trying to add the "underconstruction" template, you undid those three changes. I've restored them.

Also, how strongly do you feel about having the "stub" tag on the article in its present form? I deleted it. I think that tag is used too much. You put it back. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is unfortunately still a stub, even if I added a long list of intended topics in the lede, There is practically no content at the moment. I intend to add quite a lot quite soon, so please just hold back for the moment. The article will be hard to write largely because, as I have said, the whole subject of geometric function theory is not in a great state on wikipedia. That's the main reason most of the side articles have been written. The MoS stuff can come at the end and I have no objection at all to those changes (you are master of the en-dash; I already moved one article title in anticipation of you). I placed a notice on the article so that I can edit it calmly. I will have to write an article on the Hilbert transform on C and on the circle, as well as the Cauuchy transform on closed curves at the same time. So please, patience. Mathsci (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

86.** IP's complaint

(adapted from ANI) The post on FTN is on a different subject (asking for help with sourcing); it has nothing to do with te ANI report. I don't know what on earth you're getting at with the homeopathy thing. If you want to accuse me of something, do it, don't make these vague insinuations that innocent behaviour is somehow evil. You're being very rude, at the least, and downright harassing at worst. 86.** IP (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I made no accusations but I note your overly dramatic response here. Now please stay away from my talk page, 86.** IP. Mathsci (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Procedural loophole

Hi, Mathsci. About what you mentioned re DMSBel on ANI. I was looking at the proposed decision on RFAR Abortion the other day, and I couldn't understand how DMSBel didn't get a one-year site ban, in view of the voting. The first-choice/second-choice stuff doesn't seem to work the way I thought it did. I suppose the way he got the topic ban instead is discussed or explained somewhere, is it? Mind you, even after some arb or clerk tries to explain their arcane ways of counting, especially the power of the "abstain" vote, I generally don't understand it. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

Hello. Yes it is odd. But the whole of that case was odd. Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know also how close it was to a site ban, because I have edited without any issues in other areas and have created a couple of articles and I don't see how what I have said or done brings me anywhere near a site-ban. DMSBel (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please not post anything further about this topic on my talk page? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OTT

If you view Wikipedia as a multi-user role-playing game then I suppose that it matters rather little what you say if it makes for an advantageous move in the game. But surely it is actually damaging to mathematics, your professional subject, to make such egregiously incorrect statements in order to down down other users and end up leaving articles on mathematics in a less useful state than they might otherwise have been. I mean, you know perfectly well than various comments about, and alterations to, your articles would have improved them if you had not been so keen to win the game that you actually managed to lose it by effectively vandalizing your own work. Your comments about Ansatz's edits are simply untrue: I know it and you know it -- I am not even going to trouble myself to demonstrate that to you beyond mentioning the single word quasicircle. Just reflect on what you're doing to your subject and yourself by respassing on your own professional integrity like this. I mean this most sincerely. 94.197.59.126 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)