User talk:Mathsci/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

You will want to know of this

There is reference to you at ANI Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this message. However, since this user has claimed that I am not a professional pure mathematician, he appears to be in a very weak position. Mathsci 12:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Question of Georgiev

"Mathsci is a professional pure mathematician."

"...since this user [D. Georgiev]] has claimed that I am not a professional pure mathematician, he appears to be in a very weak position."

Dear (anonymous) professional pure mathematician, possibly you could tell us your pure and professional name?! Danko Georgiev MD 09:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As indicated by the notice below, requesting that another editor reveal his real life identity is against policy here on Wikipedia. Mathsci is completely within his rights to refuse such a request. Please do not further pursue this. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The warning below has NOTHING to do with what occurred. Mathsci is using his alleged credentials to support arguments, and, in challenging Georgiev's claims that someone else had a degree remarked that, "you have no evidence to support" the claim of a degree.[1] It is perfectly reasonable that Georgiev ask Mathsci to show evidence of his credentials by asking for his name. Please don't make this something that it isn't, a request by Georgiev for Mathsci to support academic credentials he apparently claims to have. KP Botany 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify: it's fine for someone to request credentials and/or the identity of someone here, but that person does not have to comply with the request. I agree that the template below doesn't exactly fit what Mathsci is wanting to say, but its in the general area. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the usage of this particular template in this instance. It's nowhere in the vicinity with its bolded threats of Georgiev being blocked if he does not immediately remove information he never posted. If this template is designed to be used in this instance, then it must be reworded completely. If it's designed to be used in this instance, as it appears not to be, it should not be used. Georgiev asked a question. Mathsci's answer could have been, "no," but rather has been blown up into warnings of imminent blockage unless Georgiev "immediately" undoes the harm he did. And Georgiev committed no harmful act. Mathsci claimed credentials, Georgiev asked for proof. Again, in light of the Essjay blow-up, Georgiev's request in this instance was reasonable. These bolded threats of blockage are not. Without the bolding, without the threats of blockage, maybe, but not as is. Thanks for stopping by to clarify and comment, Nihonjoe. KP Botany 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My credentials are real. You should rather look at my (recent) mathematical wikipedia edits before jumping to hasty conclusions. --Mathsci 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not about your credentials. Right now it's about your warnning template that claims that Georgiev posted personal information about you, and your titling your post on AN/I "demanding" when all Georgiev did was ask you to support claimed credentials. Without verification, that's all they are, is claims. You know full well the holes in your arguments that your mathematical edits on Wikipedia prove any credentials you claim. So, Georgiev asked, you may decline. But, don't accuse Georgiev of something he didn't do in a fit of pique that someone doubted your credentials. When you claim something on Wikipedia people want verification, and particularly after the Essjay issue people are more sensitive to anonymous Wikipedia editors claiming degrees. Asking for verification was completely reasonable--it was not a revelation of personal information nor was it the demand you characterized it as. KP Botany 20:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If this had been the first time that Georgiev had challenged my anonymity, I would agree with you. However this was not the case: he has repeatedly referred to my anonymity as cowardly. I understand that the wikipedia warning on anonymity is just a warning. Georgiev only asked for my name, not justification of my credentials. As I describe below, it is possible to verify my claim that I am a professional pure mathematician without revealing my identity. --Mathsci 22:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want your credentials questioned, don't make arguments from authority; the moment you do that, you have made your claimed credentials a legitimate subject for challenge. If you won't reveal your name and position, then we must assume that your claim to be a professional mathematician is false, and your claims of authority based on it are spurious. Georgiev is 100% right. Zsero 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not use authority to justify my doubts that Rabounski was a Professor of Mathematics as you have suggested. I simply cited two official sources. The first was the official online UNM directory which did not list Rabounski (or Rabounsky) as an employee in mathematics at UNM-Gallup, contrary to Georgiev's unjustified initial claims. The second was an official document from UNM-Gallup dating from Fall 2006 that cited Rabounski's affiliation as a department of Biophysics in the Moscow region. Finding and interpreting these citations required no mathematical expertise. --Mathsci 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Finally, although I post anomymously I am in fact also referred to in wikipedia mathematics articles under my real name. Unlike you, I am not responsable for my own name appearing and the scientific work referred to has no controversy attached to it." That sounds like an argument from authority to me. And once you made it, it was perfectly legitimate for Georgiev to question it. Zsero 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are quoting out of context. What I said is nevertheless true. --Mathsci 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you're a strange person to be digging up and presenting that evidence, when you don't have a name for us to look up in faculty directories to verify whether your credentials are real. Someone who claims to have professional credentials without evidence (your work is not evidence, you could be a talented amateur rather than holding a degree. the point being that no matter how well-done your edits are, that does not prove that you have a piece of paper) shouldn't be the one trying to discredit others for making the same claim. --Random832 21:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you not confusing wikipedia user/talk pages and wikipedia articles? These seem to be 2 quite different things. In the articles where my real name appears in the wikipedia you can look me up to your heart's content. But that will never be the case on my WP user page. Also if a WP article states a fact that can be demonstrated not to be true, then that WP article is inaccurate, independently of your credentials or mine. --Mathsci 01:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I could always privately communicate my identity to a WP adminstrator who could confirm that what I state about myself on my user page is correct. Or I could ask another mathematical WP editor who knows my pseudonym and real identity to confirm this. However, I'm sorry, but I am not willing to divulge my identity publicly. --Mathsci 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That is, imo, an appropriate answer to the question asked. KP Botany 21:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I remembered that I did in fact reveal my real-life identity by private email to CH in my first talk archive (September 2006). He advised me there that more detail should be provided on my user page to avoid exactly the kind of confusion that has arisen here. Is there a way to record such an endorsement permanently (while retaining anonymity)? --Mathsci 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on the protection of anonymity

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.

If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and follow the instructions there, including emailing this address. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia.

If you do not ensure that the personal information you posted is removed from this site you will be blocked from editing this site. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you.

Mathsci 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No personal information about Mathsci was revealed by another user. KP Botany 20:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This warning is only a warning about wikipedia policy on anonymity. It is no more than that. --Mathsci 22:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You made an argument from authority, based on your claim to be a professional mathematician; it is perfectly reasonable to demand that you back up that claim or withdraw it. Zsero 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately as I am a professional pure mathematician, I expect people to take this on good faith. I have never hidden this fact. However Georgiev simply asked for my name. He did not request any alternative form of confirmation that I am indeed a professional pure mathematician. His request is unacceptable. --Mathsci 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10