User talk:Mathsci/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Re: Happy Seasons Greetings

Thanks, and the same to you! I enjoyed working on the articles. Orgelbüchlein is on my watchlist now. Graham87 12:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I never did reply to your postings about our friend. I didn't see what could be done about the project, but if he causes more problems do let me know. I've been a bit distracted by RL. Dougweller (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry. You have a lot on your plate. Mathsci (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If I weren't going to bed soon I'd be formally notifying you about the ArbCom result, but I'm too tired.... Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto and sleep well, Doug. Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Formal notification

Here it is. NW (Talk) 21:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, NW. Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. If you don't usually watchlist it, you may wish to watch WT:ACN#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence over the next couple of days. Best, NW (Talk) 22:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock

Would you be offended if I revdeled your edit summary as disruption (by the previous poster, not you)? I already revdeled the username in the previous edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, if you block the user as a sock of Mikemikev. That will circumvent the SPI report I was making. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the clear response. I earnestly was not trying to give a hassle. I think it was important to make that explicit so that people will not try try splitting hairs or use the disengagement as a makeshift weapon. The clearer the circumstances and promises, the easier it is for administrators trying to handle any related situations. Again, thank you. I am positive, given the history, that complaints will pop up again and that the topic ban and subsequent disengagement will be brought up. Your response will help nip that in the bud with something very clear to point out. Cheers! --Vassyana (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, Captain Occam was complaining that others were not being honest about their off-wiki relationships. Matters then unravelled on wiki, probably not in quite the way he imagined when he made his requests to you. Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

British & Irish bio articles

Howdy. I've chosen to stay away from those type of articles. I disagree with the MoS (or whatever they call it) that sides with self-indentification. IMHO, Liam Neeson, Sean Connery, Benny Hill, Tom Jones (for examples) etc etc, are all British. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely and I don't see why it should be made a point of dispute. I thought Benny Hill became French :) Mathsci (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Benny Hill? French? Only for laughs. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

He came to Marseille to be mingle anonymously with the natives. I assume he wore a mouchoir over his head instead of a hankerchief ... Mathsci (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I miss that British guy. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

From your username I assume you come from Down Under. Mathsci (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, see my Userpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Last time I was there, I was in Banff. Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There's too much Devolutionism & Irish nationalism ownership in those bio articles for me to stomach. 'Tis best to just not bother. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

FYI: As far as Dunlavin Green, GoodDay should know that he's someone's sock (or which IP it was): the sixth edit[1] from this account proves it has been here before, and also its ultimate intentions: "nom de guerre" for wiki-warring. Both Dunlavin and the Captain like to move pages to the "correct spelling"; and both know the obscure name of someone named Robin Flower[2][3]. For the SPI... Doc talk 18:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's confirmed, the 2 registered accounts & the IP account are the same person. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed how fast CU works. Thanks to both of you for your assistance. Mathsci (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

NP :> But, The Captain is still editing actively. Someone needs to tag and bag them... Doc talk 19:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It thought it was automatic at CU when the case is concluded (as opposed to the report by the CU) ... Mathsci (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Me too, but apparently not. Doc talk 19:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To be more accurate - DG & the IP are socks of CFN, as CFN came into being in April 2007 & DG in Sept 2008. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I added later when I checked the dates. But I'll add it separately. Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Weston A Price image

Thank you for your tips on the Weston Price image. I uploaded another one; does it meet Wikipedia's fair use standards? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_Price

Also, I don't know how to delete the old file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Westonaprice.jpg

JaredBond (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC

Please do not add new messages at the top of this page. In reply to your question, you should request speedy deletion as the author by adding

{{db-badfairuse}}

on the page of the file. See Template:Db-badfairuse for more information. Extra information can be included in the edit summary, e.g. "Creator of file requesting speedy deletion". Mathsci (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hadamard question

Hi Mathsci, hope your New Year is going well.  :) I had a quick math question for you if you have a moment? I was doing some cleanup of disambiguation pages, and am stuck at Hadamard (disambiguation), as I'm not sure how to disambiguate Hadamard's inequality and Hermite-Hadamard inequality. I tried checking the lead of the latter to see if it offered any guidance, but can't find enough plain English to figure out how to describe it, even for something as basic as, "this is different from the other because it was written in a different year"! Is this something you could help me to decipher? Specifically, if you were to give a 10-word description to a layperson to distinguish between the two inequalities, how would you describe it? Thanks much for any assistance, --Elonka 06:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I have edited several articles connected connected with Hadamard, some of which are not on the disambiguation page. I have added them to the disambiguation page and tried to group the subjects in a way that might be useful to the lay reader. Happy New Year and thank you for not being a sockpuppet of a banned user :) Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent job! Thanks so much, I knew you were the right one to ask! --Elonka 16:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to Eugenics

Vodafone headquarters in Berkshire, England. Vodafone's mobile broadband USB sticks permit anonymized roaming access to the internet over many parts of England.

Two small edits in dispute, yet you blanked the whole page. From WP:CV#Dealing with copyright violations: "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page". Best ensure that this is dealt with quickly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is what I call vandalism. These were just two sourced sentences, which can be easily modified so that they dont violate any copyright. The rest of the text about China is translated from german wiki.--Giornorosso (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you have done it twice, I have to agree with User:Giornorosso: it's beginning to look a bit wilful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The German wikipedia is not a WP:RS and the templated notices were not vandalism, but standard notices. Two separate paragraphs were lifted word-for-word without attribution by Giornorosso (talk · contribs). He should himself have made the paraphrase and given the attribution, otherwise it is a copyvio. I have asked for Moonriddengirl's aid on this matter. Mathsci (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to remove copyrighted content from publication pending resolution of the issue. The content was a clear violation of our copyright policy. It has now been removed. That the entire article was blanked in entirety is unfortunately probably related to the inadequacy of prior instructions for its use, as those instructions did not detail how to blank a single section. They do now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. It was indeed a problem of how to deal with a section. Thanks, again. Mathsci (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question arises as to whether you should have been editing this article in the first place. Does not Eugenics fall into the category of "race-related articles" which you have undertaken to avoid [4]? 212.183.140.37 (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's actually not a very interesting question; Wikipedia benefits when obvious copyright violations are removed, so only someone with a serious axe to grind against Mathsci would try to make hay out of this. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Existence#Formal_languages

If you can bear it, could you cast your eyes over Existence#Formal_languages (but check the history, who knows what it is like now) for gobbledegook and irrelevance? I've started a thread o the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't think I can help, since it's not really my subject. I think Hans Adler is a better bet, since he's a logician. R.e.b. could probably also comment, since he knows about many things, including logic. I am in transit on Monday. Mathsci (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Letter to The Economist January 29th–February 4th 2011

The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist.[5] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Forwarded to ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

See also User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 113#Wikipedia's coverage in The Economist. Hans Adler 08:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Query regarding User:Mathsci/example

Would you happen to know when and where Noleander added those sentences? Regardless of how the ANI discussion turns out, that seems to be a pretty clearcut violation of many of the core content policies and deserving of sanction. NW (Talk) 17:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Northamptonabingtonpark.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Northamptonabingtonpark.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Georgia/Europe

This is a problem which I've encountered with many users, who try to wipe Asia off all Georgia related pages, and Georgia off all Asia related pages. Probably a systemic problem in most Georgia articles. The main country page has settled on describing it as part of the Caucasus, as have a couple of other pages. Apparently some don't realise a country can be European and Asian at the same time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this many times on Europe. It is ambiguous and wikipedia certainly cannot make any pronouncements. So, yes, I agree with you. Mathsci (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that our recent agreement on standardizing footnotes has been challenged by user Chipmunkdavis. His argument is that because sources placing Georgia in Europe do not explicitly state that it is not in Asia, comparing them to others is pointless - this is something I strongly disagree with because we never compared anything and the argument itself is ridiculous. I also disagree that we are engaged in a "source war" because we did not remove Georgia from a list based on one set of sources, we merely acknowledged what is more common based on the sources we have. Please join the discussion, if you have time.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 14:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Mathsci if I've come off abrasive in any way. This topic has caused issues before. If you check near the bottom of my talkpage, a recent example may be seen. It's late here, but I'll be sure to get back to this. Ta, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The myth of continents

I'd like to thank you so much for linking me to that book. I've been searching for awhile for a good source on continents, and this (at least the 39 pages I can see) is absolutely brilliant. So thank you, again, this will prove itself insanely useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all! Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI

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

It's not about you, but I mentioned you without name in passing and linked to some of your diffs, so I think I'm supposed to notify you. Nothing to worry about, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

AE Sanction Case

I am going to ask you to stay off of the AE sanction case for at least the next twenty-four hours while I confer with other clerks on what action will be appropriate to take to settle this thing between you and Ludwigs. NW (Talk) 00:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

email

Mathsci,

[off-topic comments of Ludwigs2]Please do not send me off-wiki communications. If you do, I will either ignore the email or respond on project.

Please do not make assumptions about my intentions, decisions, or actions. Your predilection for making pointless, incorrect, and (generally speaking) spite-laden assumptions of that sort is what's motivating me here. I am committed to finding some way to put an end to your endless, obsessive compulsion to trash talk, and I don't really care whether anyone gets upset with me over it.

If I have anything to say about it, your days of belittling other editors are numbered, so you'd best start looking into better, more civil ways of communication. The only limitation on that process is how much time and energy I want to devote to what I see as a thoroughly distasteful but necessary task. Until that is accomplished, I have no interest in dealing with you on a personal level. If you restrict yourself to content, that's fine - I have no problem working with you as an editor - but I will be expecting you to refrain from anything that even vaguely impinges on the personal. I do not want you talking about me as a person, ever, in any form or context, and if you do you can assume that I will become upset about it.

thanks for understanding. 'bye now. --Ludwigs2 17:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Mathsci. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Recusal on R&I

Mathsci, I'm not sure I've managed to get my message through about the way that I interpret my recusal on the R&I topic. It is a complete and total recusal, and I do not address *any* issues in any way in this topic area. I do not edit there, I do not administer there, and I do absolutely no Arbcom-related tasks in this topic area. I do not want to receive emails about socks or be asked to discuss any aspect of this case with my Arbcom colleagues. As far as I can tell, the only ways in which I have communicated with my colleagues about this case is to (1) tell them I was recused, (2) when the proposed decision appeared to be stalled, ask them to return to work on it and (3) forward your recent email about socks. I am genuinely concerned that I have failed so completely in communicating to you that this is a topic area that I will not be touching in any manner, to the point that I am beginning to wonder if you're simply deciding to ignore my steadfast attempts to distance myself from it. So please....do not communicate with me directly about any issues related directly or indirectly with the topic area of race and intelligence, broadly construed. On a more general note, if you wish to draw the attention of arbitrators to any particular subject area, please email the Arbcom-L mailing list at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org directly rather than personally emailing some or all of the arbitrators. Personal emails sent to arbitrators about an arbitration-related subject can (unintentionally) create the impression that there is an attempt to influence one or more members of the committee in a particular direction; I do not think that is your intention here, but your frequent references to communication with the committee can reinforce that impression in the minds of others. Thanks! Risker (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Re our exchange here, I was puzzled but it finally occured to me that you may have thought I was accusing Johnuniq of displaying a covert, anti-islam message. Not at all. I was saying it appeared Aam was, by his remark, suggesting that was the motivation behind the concern about the sidebar. Always a low argument in my view.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Europe images

Images render differently on different displays but in any case, i haven't moved any of the images in the Europe article, regards Tom B (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Substubs "of no use whatsoever"

At ANI, you wrote, "That stub [6] was of no use whatsoever; it was not so hard to write a rudimentary article." Good job, Mathsci. Feel like doing the same for the 100+ similar ones the editor created? (Most can be found in the county subcats of Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data, which is where I noticed them.) Deor (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pavillon-Vendome.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pavillon-Vendome.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Warnings

I am in no need of your warnings motherf*ucker. I discussed more than it was necessary but none of that matters for your empty head as long as you get exactly what you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mschwerin (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fyi

Based on your recent comments at ANI, I thought you might find this of interest. Lionel (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Might want to keep an eye out on this new user Wikimann1234 just in case. Here's the page which could be of interest [7]. Fountainviewkid 3:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an update (warning) that Bello's been unblocked. Fountainviewkid 04:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for involving you in this distasteful business once again, but you have been indirectly mentioned here [8] Lionel (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox

[9] User Beeblebrox removed WikiManOne's name from your comment at the ANI. Kenatipo ^speak! 04:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Email

replied to. bW 03:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Protocol

hi. Just wanted to mention that there appear to be two current articles on "Trevor Marshall." One contains the recent BLP revisions with all references to the protocol and his theory trimmed out or deleted. But the other, also entitled "Trevor Marshall" consits of the most recent revisions to the original page, complete with the references to lack of secondary sources, clinical trials etc. More confusing (to me at least), when you enter a Wikipedia search for "Marshall Protocol," you are re-directed to a 'Trevor Marshall' page. I know that a new revision has been proposed just dealing with the 'protocol' so I'm a little confused as to why the two articles, same name? Just thought I'd let another editor know. Ronsword (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please disregard above. I rechecked, and all links apparently lead to the one article. Don't know how that happened; perhaps my broswer cookies. Ronsword (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Cattell15.jpg

Hi, via otrs ticket:2011062010001214 a complaint was received about the copyright of File:Cattell15.jpg. According to the email the picture is taken from [10] and has copyright on it. Also since it was a pic from 1920 it was not 100 years since the death of the author. As a precaution I have requested immediate removal of the image. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

That image is much better. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to add 200.198.42.245 to your (ever-growing) collection of potential Mikemikev socks.[11] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

IP not banned

What do you think about the result of the banning of Bello? If you notice it didn't include the IP or a couple of other user page socks. Do you have any suggestions if action should be taken?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be done urgently at the moment. Since WikiManOne was the original account, perhaps at some stage Brandon or another experienced admin can rejig the sockmaster/sockpuppet listings (I've seen this happen before in a Troubles related sockpuppet case). Mathsci (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just afraid the IP will be back in 2 weeks editing at Pipim and causing all kinds of disruptions. What can allay these fears?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If that happens, he can be reported on ANI or SPI as the sockpuppet of a banned user. Thatt's quite easy. The main account is banned. The IP could be dynamic, so whether or not it is indefinitely blocked is unimportant. When users are banned they usually find ways of editing which are harder to detect. Mathsci (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

All right thanks for the clarification. In the meantime I'll keep up my Talk page discussion and (occasional) editing.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Please accept my apology for accidentally adding content to your section of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence It was not intentional. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on BelloWello

Thanks, Mathsci, for all your work in bringing BW to book. We'll all keep an eye out for the inevitable sockpuppets. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

See Southern Adventist University, Ouachita Hills College, and La Sierra University. He may already be back.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Mathsci (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

poke..

Miradre (talk · contribs) is back in action The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this not Ferahgo's friend raptor85 on DeviantArt, editing from Sweden? Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just going to note there is a R&I tie to the Evolutionary Psychology business. The theory among R&I pushers is that EP confirms they were right all along. It implies characteristics such as "intelligence" are an inheritable trait that can be passed down generation to generation. Thus Intelligence has the capability to be present in different populations for example Blacks and Whites. This a direct evasion of existing sanctions through the back door routes. Advancing EP advances R&I theories. The question is can we get a Admin at AE who will look at the big picture of his pattern rather than "did he edit R&I." Hell even the usual EP folks are uneasy with him working there. Thoughts? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to comment on that particular point. I have this vague inkling that Miradre's tendentious edits are not geared to improving this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring of Talk Pages

Refactoring of Talk Pages is allowed, especially when the discussion gets too long. I don't like having more than a screenful of text in my text editor. Yes, I know there's a scroll bar but I find it annoying to use it and I hate scrolling down to the bottom of the text to add another comment. I could have put in a subsection heading titled "arbitrary section break" but it did seem like the subject had changed from you chiding me for copying Slrubenstein's edit back to the discussion of Economic antisemitism. You might disagree but it's my Talk Page and I have the right to format it the way I see fit. So please... leave my refactoring edits alone. I know it may seem idiosyncratic to you but, as I said, it's my Talk Page. And please leave words like "silliness" out of your edit summaries. It's borderline uncivil and doesn't contribute to collegiality. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Economic antisemitism

I would like to draw your attention to this comment by Slrubenstein on Orangemarlin's Talk Page and my response on Slrubenstein's Talk Page. I'm open to an RFC to bring in more informed editors.

I have tried to solicit the involvement of some of the editors from the Jews and money AFD but, so far, only you, Jayjg, Orangemarlin and Slrubenstein have provided feedback. I would have wished for feedback to improve the article but most of the comments seem to have been along the lines of suggesting that the article should not exist. Despite these comments, I remain unconvinced of that. A recent discussion with Jayjg about the results of a Google Books search for "economic antisemitism" vs. other forms of antisemitism does make me think twice but I am not yet convinced that those results are enough to decide the question.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Asia article

Hi. So you're a professional pure mathematician? I do not think I have met any such before. I hardly dare to speak except in numbers. I will be sounding like a football team. Anyway I replied to your concerns about the Asia article on the article's discussion page. In advance, I took a stand against your view. But, having been on here a while I think I know better than to edit war. So, I proposed a discussion and a vote, which seem to me a more mathematical way.Dave (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

More Asia

I chose to answer you on my UP rather than keep bouncing around.Dave (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sheep

Was the Sussex sheep a Southdown (sheep)? The breeding of the Southdown was a landmark in selective breeding, you probably know. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah the sheep. Thereby hangs a tale. Or should that be tail? :-) Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's Argument

Fllowing the recen [12] our participation in the dicussion about the title and scope of the article will be apreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A strange edit by an IP

See here: [13]. The IP has also made an odd edit on Maunus's talk page. I'll see what else happens... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard

Just letting you know I replied on the admin noticeboard, I saw your comment that no administrator action was required because I started an SPI simultaneously. I clarified the purpose of said SPI, which was for the IP which accused my IP of being a sockpuppet 1 year ago, and not viriditas' accusation against me. His actions are a separate issue from the SPI. Vietminh (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

and probably another one

[14].Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd just noticed because of the talk page :) Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sidenote on ANI discussion

In case it gets missed (the discussion has grown in the two days I've been busy with other things), I responded here to the Hadamard point you made. I genuinely can't see any discussion of mathematical edits in the two fairly short e-mail conversations we've had in the last 7.5 months. Could you double-check you aren't confusing me with someone else? Probably best to sort this out here, as it is incidental to the ANI thread. Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see five emails that you sent me, Carcharoth: two on 16 December, one on 17 December and two on 21 December. The title of all five emails was "The conflict between you and Pmanderson". I remember mentioning real life particulars about two individuals with reference to their own mathematical careers, one of them was Pmanderson and the other was Rvcx. It was in fact a few days later that Pmanderson followed me to Hadamard (disambiguation), so my comments about him and his mathematical career were prophetic in a horrific kind of way. (This is one of the articles I created when rewriting the disambiguation page: Hadamard three-lines theorem.) Anyway these were two examples of Pmanderson following me to articles outside his normal editing sphere. You sent those emails while still an arbitrator and while voting was happening on an ArbCom motion concerning me. GWH had blocked me and Pmanderson on 15 December and had then gone off-line. Newyorkbrad and Slimvirigin immediately asked GWH to reconsider my block, which he lifted as soon as he came back onto wikipedia. What you wrote in your first email made similar claims about my editing and conduct to those now being made about Pmanderson. Here is the third email that you sent: "Oh, that all sounds fine, not that I can promise to mediate effectively, not much time at the moment. Remind me to talk to you at some point about people's motivations for editing Wikipedia and how that meshes or clashes or is completely separated, from the rest of their life, including their professional work. It is interesting how that can impact people's editing." In your second message you said that you did not have Pmanderson's email address so could not send a similar message. Is it only recently that he has email enabled on his user page? In any event, even on wikipedia, you did not approach Pmanderson at any later stage. You have mischaracterised my edits of Marseille on WP:ANI. I can see that might well suit your purposes. You seem to be blind, however, to the fact that I was and am an established long-term editor/maintainer there (and on similar articles like La Couronne, Bouches-du-Rhône, La Vieille Charité, Porte d'Aix and so on). My understanding of the problematic part of Pmanderson's conduct is that he inserts himself in articles, not to add content, but solely to play oneupmanship games and rub up other editors the wrong way. Mathsci (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you are absolutely right. I got the dates completely wrong there. I was indeed still an arbitrator (for a few more weeks) at the time of that first discussion. Sorry about that. I'll go and strike where I incorrectly stated otherwise on ANI. About trying to calm people down, I absolutely should have approached Pmanderson at the time (whether on or off wiki), and I now regret not doing so as it was clear that he was on course for some sort of burnout. About the other stuff, I'm willing to discuss my views on that on-wiki, but would prefer that you ask me next time before quoting me from e-mails like that. And since we are talking about those e-mails, I might as well say that I was somewhat nonplussed that you were so willing to discuss offline matters related to other editors. What I was going to ask at the time (and never got round to doing so) was whether you realise how much your own background influences how you edit Wikipedia? And I was going to follow that up with looking at my own background, with the same questions, but that will have to wait until another time. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, my "dispute" with Pmanderson that you referred to on WP:ANI and in your email concerned his edits to the section on the prehistory of Marseille. Believe it or not, that section had its problems already as a result of edits by PHG (talk · contribs), whom you might remember.

Your first email was sent in the middle of ArbCom discussions of my topic ban being lifted. That process was initiated by your fellow arbitrators, Newyorkbrad and Roger Davies. At the time another user was doing his utmost to interfere with that process, including making unsubstantiated charges of cronyism against Roger Davies on user talk:Jimbo Wales and various project pages. The editing on Marseille did not involve spelling (which actually is of no interest to me). Amongst other things, the edits involved the sourcing of the legend of Protis and Gyptis. I have access or own very recent sources (in French) which I think were inaccessible to Pmanderson. Sources in English for detailed history about specific French geographical sites rarely exist (outside translations of guide books). Pmanderson was proposing to use a travelogue from the early 1900s, available on archive.org, and primary sources from ancient antiquity. During Pmanderson's editing of the prehistory section, which appears to have been disruptive tag-bombing, three administrators intervened to advise him on trying to locate sources (Slimvirgin, maunus, Akhilleus).[15] Pmanderson in particular challenged the date of the founding of Marseille which is not a controversial fact and is put at circa 600 BC. (I also note that Zarboublian (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of the wikistalker A.K.Nole, participated in the move discussion.) Please could you get your facts right instead of reporting on a public noticeboard that I was in a dispute about the spelling of Marseille. I participated in the move discussion started by Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk · contribs) in a normal way (the article is on my watch list); but it was Pmanderson's edits to the prehistory section of the article that caused problems.

During the move discussion, Pmanderson twice placed an NPOV tag on Marseille to indicate his unhappiness with the spelling. That is disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. That was all reported here. [16] He then started his onslaught on the prehistory section. That is not normal editing, by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly edits of that kind are rare. Most disputes concern the flags/country attached to Glasgow for the town-twinning.

Also, Carcharoth, please note that, as he described in the above ANI discussion linked above, Newyorkbrad removed the NPOV tag added by Pmanderson, explaining why it was inappropriate.

I've removed the POV-title tag. There may be a good-faith discussion of which spelling should be used, as happens from time to time with many geographical names, but this cannot reasonably be framed as a "POV" issue: no "point of view" is promoted by using the spelling "Marseille" as opposed to "Marseilles" or vice versa, except on the sharply limited issue of which is the correct spelling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson's responses are worth examining. Newyorkbrad clarified why adding such a tag during a move discussion was inappropriate, to which Pmanderson responded:

Little enough in all honesty; but if we cannot even protest the entrenched territorial cliques which seek to use articles to promote a political or (as in this case) a linguistic program, we have very little hope of checking them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, not good: "entrenched territorial cliques which seek to use articles to promote a political or (as in this case) a linguistic program, we have very little hope of checking them."

Later he assumed I was French, referring to my "grasp of English idiom".[17] I quoted that later (I inserted a "the"). He subnsequently removed that comment. Without aknowledging that I was quoting him, he then chose to ridicule me, even when he was told that I was British. That particular subthread was closed by Newyorkbrad. All of that editing was disruptive and problematic.

Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll strike the bit about the spelling until I've had time to take a closer look. I do now vaguely remember the prehistory aspect of things. The motion to lift your topic ban, I don't remember at all, though I see I supported it. From what I can tell, the motion was done and dusted before I contacted you (the exact timings are not 100% clear). Not that there was any relation between the two anyway. But I should have remembered that you were involved in that motion before contacting you back then, as I can see it might have been somewhat disconcerting to be contacted like that. Sorry about that. About what Pmanderson said above, you might want to ask for clarification, though I can see how it looks like classic battleground mentality. Carcharoth (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, it is somewhat irksome that I have to go back and dig up all this up. As I just added, Pmanderson explicitly attacked me in that thread as being French, having entrenched territorial values and having no "grasp of English idiom". That is inflammatory language. I remained polite. Even when his error was pointed out, his invective did not improve. I made a request at ANI because Pmanderson was disrupting a stable article, and I could not deal with such a disruptive editor. His conduct at ANI cannot be justified: the second set of boxed comments above could be described as having "troubling overtones", to use an expression from WP:Bradspeak. Mathsci (talk)

Yeah, but you still have the claim up there on ANI that: "Carcharoth's unsolicited email concerned mathematical edits". That's not true. You were the one that brought up mathematics (in general, in terms of levels attained in the study of the subject), not me, and you never mentioned the article you've mentioned at ANI. I didn't have a clue until today that you two later (at the same time?) argued at this mathematics article (though I looked at that a few days ago and it seemed a reasonable discussion). I'm not even sure if I followed what happened after I saw the ANI thread relating to Marseille. All I was doing was sending an e-mail at about the same time, trying to calm things down (though as I failed to send one to Pmanderson, it likely made things worse). What followed that initial e-mail was what you said, and I was probably not following what had happened on-wiki since my initial e-mail, which was a bit silly of me (I do remember being puzzled as to why you were changing the subject to mathematics). I don't even remember the blocks you are referring to, though if I can get my e-mail account to work properly, I'll check all the relative timings (having some problems at the moment). Just remember that I was likely reading to and replying to your e-mails without looking at what had been happening on-wiki, as it was, after all, only meant to be a "please calm down" e-mail. As I said, it seems that failed completely. Carcharoth (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "only meant to be a 'please calm down' e-mail. As I said, it seems that failed completely." What you write is in contradiction to the email response you received from me. My immediate reply at the time had as its first paragraph, "My plan is to disengage because the dispute is so silly." That statement is completely unambiguous. Indeed after that for a period Marseille was taken off my watchlist. Might it not have been the case that you sent an email to Pmanderson but got no response? Mathsci (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added a note on the ANI subpage about the mixup between discussing mathematics in the email and the later edits to Hadamard-related articles. Mathsci (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I've almost ruined my shirt with Mt. Dew because of this. Strangely sodas are not on the Wikilove menu. Only alcohol but no caffeine, I wonder what the founders are up to... FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Due in part to your comments, but also to the entire discussion that followed at the arbitration case, I have made a proposal at the NRM workgroup page. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group#Proposal. Your input would be helpful. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What you wrote there seems fair. I have recently made comments based solely on first impressions and wikipedia editing policy. Mathsci (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread closure

I was wondering what your justification was in closing the ANI thread on Dougweller and Hrafn. Your "summary of the conclusions" was simply "No administrative action required here". The only explanation I can see is that admin Black Kite said "I think this" "can be wrapped up now." He didn't say something like "this is wrapped up now," "this is closed," "this is resolved," or "no administrative action required here." Nor did he close it or indicate at the top of the thread that was resolved or simply that no admistrative action was required. He also didn't address the issue of his work with Dougweller and Hrafn.

In looking at the current ANI threads and all the threads in 3 previous archives, I couldn't find you taking a similar action on a single other thread. As you are not an admin, how do you have the authority to unilaterally close the thread (I could understand if Black Kite clearly said that the thread was closed but failed to mark it as such). Even if you were an admin, I wonder how you could objectively make this decision, as you also regularly work with Dougweller. Drrll (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I was WP:UNINVOLVED. I have closed threads and subthreads on noticeboards before, but I do not do it very often. Please WP:AGF. Experienced contributors had already indicated that no administrative action would be be taken as a result of that report (and the parallel one at WP:WQA), so there was no advantage in leaving it open. You were continuing to flog a dead horse. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I am missing something obvious, but the last time I checked (and rechecked), you were not an administrator. You closed a case at the Administrator noticeboard. Likewise, while involved (with Dougweller & Hrafn) admin Black Kite said that "I think this" "can be wrapped now," no other admins on the Administrator noticeboard expressed the opinion that they thought that no administrative action should be taken (actually, no other admins expressed any opinion about the matter period). You invoked WP:UNINVOLVED as justification, but that is a part of WP:ADMIN policy, which wouldn't apply to you. Can you point to policy that allows a non-admin to act as an admin? Let's assume for a moment that you can point to such a policy, which would mean WP:UNINVOLVED may apply. WP:UNINVOLVED says:

In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

....Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

While you may have not been inolved in the specific case at ANI (who is besides the editor filing the case and the subjects of the case?), you appear to be involved in the subject of the case, Dougweller. Does not that raise the question that you "may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest" given the possibility that you may "have strong feelings about" Dougweller? In addition, if I look at your contributions or those of Black Kite, will I find involvement, as I did with Dougweller, in the general topic areas that precipitated the WQA complaint (the scope of creationism/ID), which itself unexpectedly led to the ANI complaint? Drrll (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing more to add. Please stop posting on my user talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

wp:coin

Just to be clear, I can totally understand your post on wp:coin. It's really easy to do stuff like that just from not keeping wp:outing or its implications in mind. I've done something similar within the last month, and my last post was 100% not directed at you, just the guy arguing that wp:outing shouldn't apply on wp:coin. Kevin (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kevin and thanks for the message. I know both administrators (Atama and TOAT) so I understand the discussion at this stage is purely "academic" :) Regards, Mathsci (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30