User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Clean Up

Can you just clear up swearing, personal refeneces here: [1]. The swearing is libelous and the personal references are uncalled for. These are both covered by Oversight. Thanks! 192.160.62.60 12:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

Hi you added some information to Camden - it was not in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I know you weren't the only culprit who didn't conform to the MoS on that page but I am trying to educate people about the style guide. Thanks--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with some aspects of that MoS page; and it is clearly stated only to be a guide. Charles Matthews 07:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Uganda YMCA

Heck, I'm probably wrong. Sorry. What do you want to do about Ugandan YMCA then? Dweller 10:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually typing this in the office of the Deputy Sec. of the UYMCA. Just hold off while I go on explaining to her! Charles Matthews 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

lol. No worries, I'm sitting on my hands. btw Uganda's a gorgeous country. I do my best for the tourism industry by telling everyone. Dweller 10:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

Is there a reason the ArbCom is not touching any pages other than the proposed decision? --SPUI (T - C) 01:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Contract bridge

Hi. You might be interested in participating in new Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge. Regards, Duja 10:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan Sperber

Charles, a few of your user subpages link to this article, which has now been created as a one line stub. Please improve it if you have time, otherwise it will likely be deleted. Thanks. Harro5 00:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done some work on this. --Charles Matthews 21:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Buffett and Buffet disambiguation

Buffet (disambiguation) and Buffett were merged per Wikipedia policy on disambiguation (WP:DAB). Hence your recent edits to those pages will be reverted.

If you wish to propose a change to WP:DAB, please head to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Thank you. —MinorEdits 08:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have lost the links I added to Buffet (disambiguation), namely toLouis Buffet and Marie-George Buffet. Would you like to show me where exactly on WP:DAB it says it is policy to do that? 'Wikipedia policy on disambiguation' is a broad area, isn't it? And much of the manual page is at most guideline. But nowhere, I think, will you find trashing relevant links as policy. --Charles Matthews 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Maggie O'Sullivan

Hi Charles. I noticed you did a bit of editing on the Maggie O'Sullivan article. Anyone who enjoys Maggie's work can buy me a drink any day :)! The pub seat is pulled out and waiting for you to sit down. Cheers! SilkTork 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeremiah Burroughs

I just added a page for the Puritan preacher Jeremiah Burroughs, and I saw that one of your user pages links to him. I had trouble discerning if you would actually be interested in the article or not, but I thought I would mention it here just in case. --Flex 20:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for prompting me. The list of names is from a book I no longer have - possibly English Puritans of 1910 by John Brown. I look to have the red links gradually filled in, over time, as a test of the completeness of the coverage here over various areas. --Charles Matthews 08:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I also added List of Puritans and have compared it against your list and added names as appropriate. (Some of the names on your list point to the wrong people or disambiguation pages, to influencers of the Puritans [e.g., Beza], and to their opponents, so not all were added.) --Flex 13:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my lists have random stuff on them - they are magpie collections. --Charles Matthews 10:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.

Alienus RfC

Charles, would you consider changing your vote to allow an RfC to go forward? Alienus does have many blocks, but a few recent blocks have been controversial, some of which were eventually overturned, hence the heated AN/I discussions. I do think an RFC is in order, as there are some legitimate concerns that need to be worked out. As a few users have noted, Alienus has been getting better as an editor, not getting worse. As such, I think it's premature to go straight into RFA. Al has indicated that he is willing to abide by the outcome of an RFC. I'd like to see that he is given that opportunity before resorting to arbitration. Tony has suggested he won't stand in the way of this proposal. [2] ^^James^^ 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly a problem of his not assuming good faith. --Charles Matthews 09:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. But consider that a number of users have indicated he has been improving as an editor, not deteriorating. Also, Sophia has been making an effort to mentor him: I suppose there is a personal aspect to this as I have tried to play a mentor role to Al and he has responded as well as you could ever expect someone to do in the short time we have been in communication. He still needs to work on his civility occasionally but I genuinely think sometimes he has no idea how his comments will be taken by others. These are errors everyone in the world is guilty of and a successful community will educate people and help them avoid problems in the future. Throw in the international element of this project and you have even more issues as culturally we do approach things differently. In my mind, arbcom is a last resort, to be used when other avenues have been exhausted. Considering his recent improvements, and the questionable nature of the recent blocks (which would challenge anybodys good faith assumptions, imho), I hope you will reconsider. ^^James^^ 16:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what comes out of the Fred Bauder suggestion of throwing this to an RfC. That could generate some discussion: I haven't yet had anything further out of Fred on it, but I'm certainly flexible if he thinks there is a good case. OTOH an ArbCom case could result in making a mentoring role official, which also has its points. --Charles Matthews 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems it was all for naught, as Alienus has decided to leave rather than face arbitration. But thank you for considering my request. ^^James^^ 00:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Human-computer interaction, hyphen vrs ndash

Hi Charles, I don't know if you can help clarify a query. Human–computer interaction has reciently been moved to Human-computer interaction, I suspect that the original punctuation is correct, but I'm no expert on these things and you seem to know about these things. Comment welcome on Talk:Human-computer interaction. --Salix alba (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the move was good Charles Matthews 14:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A favor to ask

As I am in the US for te forseeable future, would you mind dropping by a local pub in Cambridge (preferably the Six Bells on Covent Garden, near Mill Road, but any pub will do) and having a Greene King Abbot Ale for me? Not a drop of Real Ale to be found in these parts, I'm afraid. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no can drink alcohol ... Charles Matthews 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, then one of the following would suffice: have a proper curry from one of the curry houses on Mill Road, enjoy some good fish n chips, slather HP sauce on something, or have a proper Sunday lunch. If you find those to be impossible also, just look outside and appreciate the fact that Cambridge is one of the nicest places on earth and you are lucky enough to be there :) youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Another favour?

Could you put {{WPCD}} on the talk pages of key maths articles for me? --BozMo talk 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Integer square root

Is it appropriate to include any fast, tested, working language-specific code to calculate the integer square root in the integer square root article? Iamunknown 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam Sloan announcement

"I did not 'attempt' to post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. I did post 100 chess biographies on Wikipedia. All but one of them is still there. I merely waited until [ Rook wave ], [ Phr ] and Louis Blair were not looking and reposted them. I added a new biography yesterday and no I am not going to tell you where it is for fear that they will vandalize it again." - Sam Sloan (samhsloan@gmail.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, 11 Jul 2006 05:23:13 -0700) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f245a0650c22f010?hl=en

"My Biography of Dimitrije Bjelica" - Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:09:34 GMT) http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/eefc91bb2aeda9d0?hl=en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrije_Bjelica - Louis Blair (July 19, 2006)

Arbitration

Hello, please help with a case about alleged adminship abuse by JzG, which had been rejected by three arbitrators before an administrator warned the accused one and undid part of his actions. The conflict is going on and I do not know how to find a solution. The only arbitrator who has sinced voted on the case is one who in my eyes is in a conflict of interest as he did a very similar block on me in the past that I think was abusive and that was undone by Theresa as it lacked any evidence of wrongdoing by me. I had suggested a change to the blocking policy but the discussion about it has up to now been inconclusive due to a lack of participants. Socafan 02:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Residue Number System

I have a question on the Math Ref Desk that I'd like you to take a look at, since you're the only name on Residue number system's discussion page. Black Carrot 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Forest-fire models

Hi Charles—I noticed you moved the article on forest-fire models. I should point out the rationale for having the plural when I created the article: there are several of these models, although one in particular gets a lot of attention (the Henley-Drossel-Schwabl one).

You're a more experienced Wikipedian than I, so can you clarify the policy? —WebDrake 07:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is discussed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). There is a strong preference for the singular form. Charles Matthews 16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics Policy?

Hi! I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and trying to learn from my mistakes. I posted a lot of sample lyrics on the Peter Alsop page, and you took them off because they were inappropriate. I realize now that I should not put on so many lyrics. But why did you remove all the lyrics? They were not the entire songs, only portions--single verses, or even sometimes a couple lines--and I think that portions illustrated Mr. Alsop's style sufficiently to add to the usefulness of the article.

I want to find out more about Wikipedia's policy, or the copyright policy in general, surrounding the use of lyrics, so that I can consider whether or not to reintroduce (far fewer) lyrics onto the page, or leave them off entirely, and so that I don't make a similar mistake in the future. Thank you. Kilyle 07:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use, under the Text section, for a delineation. Charles Matthews 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lamech

Hey Charles, I saw you've edited Lamech, descendant of Cain before. I merged info from Lamech to it awhile ago because of the similarities between the characters, but I think "Lamech" is the most intuitive title for the article. Could you move it over?--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, Ta bu shi da yu already did it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Elliptic rational function

Hi Charles - Are you certain that Elliptic rational functions are Elliptical functions (names notwithstanding)? PAR 02:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They involve Jacobi's elliptic functions, certainly, and are some type of division polynomial for the cn function. They belong in the category, therefore. Charles Matthews 05:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gauss sums and Kummer sums

Hi Charles, how are you enjoying the membership of the ArbCom? I'm glad to see that you still have time left to work on the encyclopaedia according to your list of contributions. I'd like to ask you to cast a look at the new articles Gauss sum and Kummer sum. I don't know anything about advanced number theory, but a 1979 article in Invent. Math. on Kummer sums which you may remember from a previous life, seems to state that the expressions treated in Gauss sum are the same as those in Gaussian period#Gauss sums. I asked for clarification on User talk:Mon4#References (who wrote the articles), but that editor could only say that indeed, something seems to be not quite right. Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The definitions aren't the best. The quadratic Gauss sum is kind of OK, since the definition is equivalent; but the Kummer sum one is wrong, I'd say. There is, as it were, a Fourier transform involved, and we have got on the wrong side of it; the quadratic case can mislead, since there is the phenomenon equivalent to the FT of a Gaussian again being Gaussian. Charles Matthews 13:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For a moment, I was scared that you expected me to rewrite the article. Fortunately, you did so yourself; many thanks. I'm pleased to see that you put encyclopaedic value above modesty. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

M/z issue

Hi Charles, I wonder what made you vote against me on this issue? I still think that I am defending the official notation and that Nick is defending a minority POV. Could you give me some hint where, you think, I am wrong in this issue? --Kehrli 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I voted to hear the issue, not against you. Charles Matthews 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did not realize this. I will try to get better educated on this arbitration procedure. Thanks. --Kehrli 16:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Charles, but now I wonder what made you vote against me on this issue? I still think that I am defending the official notation and that Nick is defending a minority POV. Could you give me some hint where, you think, I am wrong in this issue? --Kehrli 19:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Aurelian Townsend

Hi Charles,

I saw in August 2004 you began the article on Aurelian Townsend, the English Poet. I would like to challenge the spelling of his name, which I believe should be Townshend.

Firstly, Aurelian's father has been identified as John Townshend, son of George Townshend who was the brother of Sir Robert Townshend (whose tomb is located in Ludlow Parish Church, spelled Townshend).

Secondly, Aurelian's descendents, known as the Hem-House Townshends which then splits into two main groups - The Townshends of Trevallyn House and the Townshends of Wincham Hall. All these descendants spell their name as Townshend.

Lastly, it is known that Aurelian Townshend received permission from Horatio Townshend to rename his step-son Robert Agborough to Robert Townshend (later Sir). FYI, Sir Horatio Townshend (1st Viscount Townshend) was the father of the more famous Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend (a.k.a. Turnip Townshend) of Raynham Hall.

If, by some chance, you are interested in Aurelian Townshend you may also be interested in knowing that he was a colleague and Steward of Robert_Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury. This appears to relate to Turnip Townshend's neice, Letitia Townshend who married Brownlow Cecil, 9th Earl of Exeter of Burghley House).

In 1643 Aurelian Townshend, for some reason, was granted the freedom of privilege of Parliament.

Interestingly, Inigo Jones admired Aurelian's talents and used them in his court masques. This is especially interesting from an architectural point of view, for it is believed but not proved that Inigo Jones was the designer of Raynham Hall begun by Horatio Townshend's father, Roger Townshend, 1st Bt, in 1619.

Eltharian ^Talk 15 August 2006

It turns out that Aurelian Townshend already existed, so I have merged the Townsend page into that. Charles Matthews 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Giano - pour encourager les autres?

The original quote is by Voltaire in Candide

Dans ce pay-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres. In this country it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, to encourage the others.

-Applicable in many situations when a punishment far heavier than is warranted by the offense is imposed in a politically motivated, and fairly cynical, attempt to prevent others committing the same offense, and to deflect blame. copyvio'ed in haste from http://www.zanthan.com/itymbi/archives/000851.html

Is this really how you would have wikipedia treat a well respected, productive, 'non-problem' user? I urge you to rethink your vote in favour of banning Giano at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Proposed decision. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a considered opinion. I thought about it for a day. I like Giano. That however would be a bad reason to go on easy on him. Charles Matthews 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• "I like Giano" - What absolute rubbish! - People like me make you feel very uneasy indeed - you are never sure which direction we are coming from - out of sight and out of mind is your solution to the problem. Isn't it?......I can see it quite clearly. Where as EE you can guide and mentor. Giano | talk 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not the slightest idea why you are saying any of this, if not to let off steam. I remember looking up Olga Rudge's violin teacher for you, and that's about the size of it all. Charles Matthews 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• ......and, I'm sure Olga Rudge is eternally grateful to you. You seem to forget that we are not here for our own ends and egos, but to unite in writing an encyclopedia. Sometimes a few eggs get broken, and personalities clash. EE was a menace, she hindered the development of the encyclopedia. That is not the title of a debate it is a proven fact - sad but true. Yet you wish to ban me for standing up to her - why I wonder? - I wonder it very deeply in fact. You are presumably not stupid, you know my comments to her would be laughed out of a common court of law - you know your findings hold no water yet you behave irrationally and illogically. EE has used the language of the gutter to attack and threaten, I have just made people laugh to quieten her down. Now why would you find that more frightening than EE's behaviour - so you see I wonder very deeply indeed. Giano | talk 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems you see no need at all to apologise, and would do the same again tomorrow. See below where I point out that there is no foundation for standing up to difficult users by 'hitting back'. That's not the way. I would very strongly advise anyone faced with a difficult user to keep their comments very tight and formal. Not jibes, but references to policy. You see what I'm saying. If you engage with someone who is quite likely to end up in a dispute, subject to our quasi-legal processes, you make it harder if you indulge in what you see as jokes at their expense. It muddies the total position, if you put yourself in a false position. It makes that much harder ruling on who's right and who's wrong. Charles Matthews 09:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Spot on. I have repeatedly said I see no need to apologise, nor shall I - and, incidentally, to whom exactly do you feel an apology should be directed? - To EE? I'm sure half the encyclopedia is watching to see if you think that. For God knows how long Wikipedia's police force had the opportunity to stop EE and her antics - they did not. Having missed that boat it is now rather late for you to start handing out wise advice and telling us how the problem could have been solved. She was disrupting the Encyclopedia, I attempted to stop her - you and your colleagues did not even try, and she ran rings arownd the few admins who did attempt to control her. Now tell me where apologies should be coming from and directed. I am completely in the right, and yes I would do the same thing tomorrow. She is gone, and I am glad but she will be back and I look forward to seeing how you deal with her, in fact I can hardly wait. I shall look and learn. Giano | talk 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So, the proposition 'Giano (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has engaged in taunting of Eternal Equinox [15], [16], and [17]' has the support of six Arbitrators. Ir is a misconception to talk as if the ArbCom was a 'police force'. It rules on matters as and when cases are brought. I shall note for future reference that you would act the same way. It tends to strengthen my view, that people like you taking matters into their own hands is quite a serious issue. Charles Matthews 14:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Mr Matthews, please just answer the question "to whom should an appology be directed?" Giano | talk 14:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought I heard a door slam as you left. Charles Matthews 14:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I never slam a door - but I note your inability to answer the question. Giano | talk 14:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer is easy enough: leave a note explaining your actual intention with the remark, drop a private note to the ArbCom. It's getting this past the bluster that appears a bit too tough, right now. Charles Matthews 14:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• You still seem unable to answer the question: To whom do you think I should apologise? This is a public forum, yet you are telling me to drop you/ the arbcom a private note? - I'm incredulous, is that how these things are conducted? I'm going to re-read - No, I'm positive that is what you have said. Sorry I don't do private notes to people I don't know - With me, what you see (or read) is what you get, and I seem to have got you! As I said I don't slam doors, I shall just leave you quietly. You disgust me. Giano | talk 18:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not unable to answer the question. I'm suggesting you leave an apologetic note on User Talk:Eternal Equinox; that is the user whom, in the opinion of six Arbitrators so far, you have been taunting. Letting the ArbCom know that you do not intend to do the same again is of course optional, but can't do you any harm. It seems unlikely at present that you will do these things. But your self-justifying attitude seems to have dampened down the supporting voices here. That's good: perhaps I can get on with something else. Charles Matthews 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Finally, an answer. Thank you, your eventual co-operation is appreciated. Interesting view point that I should apologise to EE, but it is yours and you are entitled to it. Perhaps next time though you will think twice before "pour encourager les autres" because that is exactly what you seem to have done isn't it. I have been overwhelmed by "the others" support - and I thank them sincerely. Giano | talk 21:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Banning Giano, and Giano only (for I see you oppose banning Eternal Equinox) is an excellent idea, a real inspiration of Fred's, and I'm glad to see it getting some support at last. The users opposing it on the workshop page have surely reckoned without the in itself valuable effect of humiliating a conceited and touchy user (what do you mean, not a problem user?). That'll cut him down to size. Well, and make him (and me) leave the project, but what the hell, omelette, eggs, other pests like him will have learned a lesson for it. Anyway, to encourager EE is surely the main thing here. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

Hang on. You can say what you like to me here. But a one-month ban is a holiday, a one year ban is a maximum sentence. Charles Matthews 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? A ban is a humiliation, not a holiday. 15 minutes would be too much. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

Oh, I'm serious. I've always been a hawk on behavioural matters. What does it take to make people hesitate before tapping 'Enter', on that just-the-nasty-side-of-witty remark? Hesitate as in count to ten, before entering something snide into the record of enWP, permanently. Charles Matthews 16:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

? You're answering the wrong question. "A one-month ban is a holiday"--"Are you serious?" Bishonen | talk 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

That too. I had a compulsory month off recently when my PC was sick. Charles Matthews 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You choose not to understand me. Fine, I'm done on this page. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

But a good reason would be that the case should be judged on it's merits, and the principle of Equity should be applied. Especially in consideration of the thousands of excellent edits Giano has made for the encyclopedia, it seems anachronistic incongruous in the extreme to 'throw the book' at him for something which nobody really believes involved a serious death threat - merely a barbed satirical comment.--Mcginnly | Natter 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't mean 'anachronistic', I think. Charles Matthews 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

you're right 'incongruous' - out of place (rather than time), that's it. Regardless, as I recall, Giano suggested EE try Fugu. Is this seriously being considered a 'taunt including a suggestion of death'? As made clear in the article on Fugu it is considered a delicacy in Japan. 'Since 1958, only specially licensed chefs can prepare and sell fugu to the public' and as a result the reports of the number of fatalities are small 1-100 per year. If I suggested to you whilst you were visiting Jimmy Carter's Peanut farm that you try his peanuts - would this be a 'taunt including a suggestion of death', because anaphylaxic shock causes some 125 deaths a year in the US as a result of peanut consumption?

The charge is badly written; really it wants to say 'taunting including a death threat' but cannot through lack of evidence - Giano did not say 'I wish you were dead' - the charge is written to allude to such threat, but cannot explicitly state it. The case should be tried on the evidence not vague allusions of impropriety. There is no evidence for a 'suggestion of death' only to try a risky delicacy.

Pedantry aside, Giano's evidence states that he was really trying to catch EE out in a lie - after she had said she had departed for Japan. Caution him for taunting - as you will the others - but to ban him for this tenuous 'suggestion of death' is unfair and doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.--Mcginnly | Natter 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't lobby arbitrators, but I deeply disapprove of this vote for the reasons discussed on the Workshop page to the EE case. So far as I am aware, there is a total absence of ArbComm precedent for a ban based upon a single edit intended as humorous, and rightly so. True "aggressive taunting with a suggestion of death" is to be found in another pending case, and if a point is to be made, it should be done in that case, not here. Newyorkbrad 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Precedent is not recognised as binding Arbitrators. And it is nonsense to say we can't start in on sanctions in some area if needed. The remit is to keep good order, not to erect some elegant bit of case law. Charles Matthews 14:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't one lobby arbitrators - what happened to 'justice must be done and seen to be done' - the process is going wrong here, and everyone should speak up.--Mcginnly | Natter 18:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I was expressing the view that the arbitrators' responsibility is to make an independent assessment of the facts and equities and not simply to defer to the number of comments they receive (notwithstanding which the number of uninvolved users who have weighed in against the proposed ban of Giamo is a significant datapoint). That was a bit of introductory throat-clearing, I suppose. Of course I expect that the arbitrators should consider the substance of arguments presented to them, or I would not have posted multiple times in this case, both here and on the Workshop page, even though I don't know Giano or anyone else involved from Adam. I hope it is clear that I strongly urge the arbitrators who have voted in favor of the remedy in question to reconsider their positions on both the remedy and the underlying facts for the reasons expressed by Mcginnly and others. There is a pending ArbComm case involving "aggressive taunting with a suggestion of death" and it is not this one. Newyorkbrad 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

People can write here, naturally. But arbitrators do develop a thick skin. The only thing that gets through to me is suggesting that I have misread the diffs. The crack about fugu is quite nasty, in my view. I wish to discourage people from doing this, i.e. being unpleasant to others they see as problem users. There is no basis at all in our policies for being nasty to others, to hasten their departure, or to make sure they stay away. None at all. Charles Matthews 19:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear at all to me that Giano's "just-the-nasty-side-of-witty" should ellicit a ban. The punishment seems totally inconsistent with the offence, particularly as the remark can on the one hand be taken as witty and on the other as nasty - there's some room for interpretation - and as such, shouldn't he be given the benefit of the doubt? --Mcginnly | Natter 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see - who reads WP these days? Alexa says that nearly 5% of Web users, daily, are somewhere on WP. Do we want equivocal remarks? Do we want things that could cause offence, or be misinterpreted? Actually, no. We want people who are thoughtful about their use of language, and who eschew point-scoring, and so on. Basically, this place is not for kiddy attitudes. I think people who are careless should become more careful. Charles Matthews 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that with all this hullabaloo, your point regarding carelesness has been made. But to vote for banning Giano and not vote for banning EE is still a very peculiar stance. You won't ban EE because you think that a ban will be ineffective in preventing him or her editing under another sockpuppet, but you will ban Giano because you trust him to abide by your decision. Overt offensive behaviour is rewarded with a slap on the wrist, a single incident of an equivocal, exasperated outburst is punished in the most severe terms. Equivocal remarks, things that could cause offence or (heaven forbid!) misinterpretation aren't wanted in an ideal world, I'd also like to see an end to war and the loving unity of all mankind, but until my shot at Miss World I'll accept the fact that I'm unlikely to be able to change human nature. This verdict will be ineffective at changing peoples behaviour and will serve only to punish and alienate those who hold the project dear. Your tone is defiant to these arguments now and I know you won't change your vote. Someone wrote on the EE case talk page - 'Wikipedia is not a maiden aunts' tea party. We debate issues fully, frankly and robustly', to which we should add courteuosly. I hope you haven't taken any of this personally, but the issues here needed to be aired.--Mcginnly | Natter 12:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously my point has not been made long and hard enough - see Giano's sign-off comment above. I arbitrate rather than campaign. But I'm against vigilantism, when there are 100s of admins with proper powers and a brief to see policy is enforced here. I'm also against the undue vehemence, which people seem to think is a way of life around here. No reason for that, and far too much of it on the site, quite generally. Charles Matthews 14:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see...are there any other hawks on behavior issues? Hmmm. We could call on Bishonen or Geogre. Those guys are fairly tough about it. Oh, oops. They both think that Giano's behavior was witty rather than wounding. We could call on ALoan, Bunchofgrapes, Lar.... Rats! All of them, too. I don't like theology by "proof text" (citing a single verse as proof of a universal principle), and I don't like judgment by a single diff, either. If you weren't there, taking any measures at all to deal with Eternal Equinox, then you cannot assess the strength or mildness of any comment to him without reading all the exchanges. These go back about 6 months, cover dozens of name changes, threats by him, departures, stalkings, etc., and, amid all of that, you can take one witticism as proper for a month's sanction and a history of vote stacking, block evasion, and destructive editing as a case for mercy? That's astonishing. It's simply astonishing. I, too, would be willing to take very strong measures if this were to be implemented, and I'd like to think that there are few greater process freaks on the site than I. Geogre (the Aurelian Townshend dude) 20:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you would actually be wrong about wishing an accidental death by nerve poison on someone as an exhibition of wit. I can do without that. The rules on personal attacks are not for gaming, by wry metaphyical conceits or otherwise. And if it becomes fashionable to threaten arbitrators with all sorts of dire things, if they call them as they see them, matters on the site will not get better. My Sunday paper listed the 15 essential websites; and, hey, there was Wikipedia and a photo of Jimbo at #2. So, does this mean I should reckon on backing off from sanctions if a few buddies pile up on my User Talk? No, it means that Wikipedia has global recognition. Behaviour has to improve. People have to straighten up and fly right. Charles Matthews 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it's just a group of cranks and buddies! Nicely turned. The reason that what Giano said was not a threat and was wit is that it was literally true. I shouldn't have to explain this, but, apparently, misunderstanding is now so rife and so actionable that it's required. Giano recommended that EE try the blowfish, after EE said that he was going to Japan. That is not a death threat. It is a wish that EE have fugu, which is, as Giano said, delicious. The statement was entirely true, entirely non-threatening, and, in fact, it requires not only reading between the lines but reading between them with attribution of malice to get it as a threat at all. The straight reading is literally earnest. It is the secondary reading that shows the dark wish. There was no threat. There was only an inferring of threat made by a "third party" later. For you to rule that this inference is iron clad, apparent, and sufficient to block someone for a month is astonishing. Dismissing all of us who, without supporting Giano's statement or action, are appalled at Fred's staggeringly inappropriate suggestion as "few buddies" is one of those things that shows that, indeed, you ought to back off from enforcement if you cannot tell those who have made Wikipedia in the top 13 from those who keep it from being better. What this sanction would show, definitively, is that the current members of ArbCom cannot tell good from bad sufficiently to have our faith or trust. Geogre 21:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose part of what bothers me about this situation is the seemingly random nature of the case in which two arbitrators have decided to make their "point." EE was a notorious problem user who was saved from a probable community ban only by her frequent changes of username and occasional disappearances. Had Giano made his comment to a user without a history of issue of her own, it would probably not even have warranted a short-lived thread on WP:PAIN. Had EE pushed her luck just one step farther, the EE case would have been rejected under recent ArbCom precedent that cases are not taken simply to reconfirm community bans (as with User:Ste4k and User:GeneralTojo. Instead, Giano is in the wrong place at the wrong time and two arbitrators have voted to take a step that would drive several long-term and valued contributors off the project for a single intended-as-humorous edit three months ago. I do not believe that the proposed remedy here will ultimately pass, but am stunned that it is still under consideration. Newyorkbrad 21:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. after edit conflict: The odd thing here is I agree with CM on 90% of what he's written. Much behavior does need to improve. I just feel that he and Fred have picked a very odd starting point. I will add, however, (1) I am a relatively new user and not a "buddy" of anyone involved here, and (2) that no one to my knowledge has threatened any arbitrator with "dire things" (or with anything at all). Newyorkbrad 21:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that threats to leave the project unless some or other votes is changed are, well, threats. I don't think I'm inconsistent in my own approach: I have probably voted for every personal attack parole available since January. I'm all for the use of limited bans. Arbitrators get to vote on the cases and proposals in front of them, and only those. This is not about process, and not about fallacious equations between users X and Y. It is not about precedent, and the interpretation of 'proportionality' is personal and has to respond to the needs of the project. Charles Matthews 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Charles should know that I'm pretty hawkish about behavior. It's on wiki that I have urged Giano to temper his language. It's on wiki that I have insisted, over and over again, that everyone follow our process. However, WP:NPA is a policy that merely says that we don't make personal attacks. It has no sanctions adherent to it. Further, anyone is free to ask me what my "dire" actions are planned. I'd be happy to talk about them, as they're entirely in process as well. <shrug> It's beyond me that anyone can actually review the situation with EE and not see a very long block warranted or review Giano's single witticism and decide that, oh, yes, no doubt, that's just way cross the line: we must institute a block. Geogre 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me that I should be explicit, given everything else: I have not intended any threats to anyone. I have stated that wider support would require dire responses, but dire is not to be construed as illegal, illicit, or inappropriate as much as "causing delays and normally unncessary actions." I have to say that, since telling someone to enjoy a hamburger could be understood as wishing them to eat raw meat and die from e coli infestation. Geogre 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I've not discussed this with you. I spend most of my time on WP doing labour-intensive dab pages for surnames, not hanging out. Charles Matthews 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Charles. I think I should post again despite my dignified exit, because I honestly think there's a misunderstanding. Nobody was threatening to leave the project unless your vote, or some vote, was changed, that I can see. I sure didn't, and would not, try to pressure you to change your vote (and would merely look a fool if I did). I said I'll leave if Giano *is banned*, which is a pretty theoretical contingency, looking at the arb voting so far. But I'm sorry I mentioned leaving at all, it wasn't even relevant. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

Alexander Grothendieck

I see that you are interested in this article. Can you please help with the editor who keeps trying to deny that Grothendieck and other mathematicians are Jewish?

I am very willing to help. I would not say that the evidence about Grothendieck's mother is at all clear. Cartier says one thing; but the AMS biography seems quite thorough and mostly points the other way. All we can do here is to summarise the evidence. That is why I made a separate section for the family background; under the NPOV policy we have to report fairly on this issue. Charles Matthews 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being so fair. The point I have been bringing forward is that aside from Cartier's article, which the Grothendieck Circle states has biographical inaccuracies, other sources seem to say that Grothendieck's mother was Lutheran. However, there are several editors who have decided to side with whatever Jinfo says, which strikes me as dubious given the fact that Jinfo provides neither credentials nor the name of any real life individual behind the project. 128.148.123.7 15:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Charles, could you please read this: User_talk:SimonP#Editing_articles.2C_arbCom_case. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Read it. I think your point is a stretch. Charles Matthews 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. My concern is that the ArbCom is making a distinction between students/disciples of spriritual leaders, and ex-disciples that are engaged in active critical activities against their former spiritual guide, as it pertains to theit ability to edit neutraly about the subject. Wouldn't you agree that both will encounter challenges when attempting to edit articles about their association with the subject? Should not be both warned about it? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the ruling reads (my highlight):

"Editing an article concerning a guru you are a disciple of is governed by the principles in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research remain in full effect.

Is it not the case that we all need to abide by WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V? Editing of articles in which we have vested interests (political, religous, economic and otherwise) is always difficult, but we have our policies to guide our editing, and these apply to all subjects, including this one. Why making this distinction? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I imagine disciples as having a level of loyalty to their teacher that is higher than what they feel they owe to this project. That will not always apply. And it will not always vitiate their edits. On the other hand, recognition of this kind of 'moral hazard' can be useful all round. People are generally counselled not to edit on matters to which they have too close a personal connection. Charles Matthews 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That is what I mean, Charles. A critical ex-disciple that is an activist against his former guru, has a "too close a personal connection" with the subject, don't you think?. But we are not warning him about it in this ruling. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Jossi ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To summarize my concern abut this proposed ruling:

• The challenge that a disciple will have in neutrally editing the article about his spiritual teacher, is being acknowledged. Fair enough.
• The challenge that an ex-disciple that is an active critic of a spiritual teacher is not being acknowledged. This despite the abundant evidenced that both sides struggled in maintaining neutrality while editing related articles
• Most concerning, is that a distinction is being made in tis case, about the bias of a disciple of a spiritual teacher, as being different than other biases such as strong political, religious, economic, or scientific. This is of particular concern.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I still dispute the equation. It is clearly the case that an ex-disciple may have problems of objectivity. But they are not the same problems as those in the relationship implied by discipleship. Charles Matthews 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not referring to just an ex-disciple. I am referring to an ex-disciple that is an active critic of his former teacher, that manages a large website critical of his former teacher, and that spends an extraordinary amount of (both on and off wiki) time in the pursuit of such criticism. I find this difficult to swallow that such a person has less of a challenge than a disciple. I am interested to learn from you why the problems of objectivity are any different. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

They obviously are, in the sense that negative feelings are different from positive ones. In any case, I don't see the position in the same way as you do. Charles Matthews 15:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the candid response. May this be due to a specific viewpoint on your part that a "positive" feeling is inherently more complex than an "negative" one as it relates to an editor's ability to edit within policies? I am still sincerely curious and interested to understand your position in this matter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would really appreciate a clarification on your position. So far, none of the arbitrators that have voted for this remedy have explained why they are discouraging the edit of articles by disciples, while not discouraging ex-disciples that are active critics of the same. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Implications of this ArbCom ruling

In thinking this further, the implication of this ruling would be:

• Tibetan Buddhists could be discouraged from editing the Dalai_lama and Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama articles
• Sikhs could be discouraged from editing Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh
• Ravidasis could be discouraged from editing Raidas
• Followers of Vedānta, yoga, tantra and bhakti schools could be discouraged from editing articles about their teachers
• and so on

All this when there are no discouragement or limitations for

• Roman Catholics from editing the Pope_Benedict_XVI or Jesus related articles
• Orthodox Jews from editing articles about their rabbis
• Sufis from editing articles about Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi
• and so on

Is this not a precendent of discriminating against followers certain faiths in Wikipedia? What do you think Hindus, Sikhs, Budhist and others will feel about Wikipedia when they learn about this... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, we never discourage critics: critics have a point of view, and our articles are supposed to be comprehensive, and include in a fair way all points of view. You are obviously going to persist in this line of questioning. But it is our policy, also, that those too close to a subject (their own biographies, for instance) should be discouraged from writing on it. While it is clearly the case that very aggressive critics may have a problem with being fair, we do not attempt to write that specially into policy. Everyone should respect NPOV: that's it. Charles Matthews 08:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will persist in seeking clarification, because I see this ruling to have the potential to be setting a very controversial precedent. The fact that everyone should respect Wikipedia content policies, is no being disputed, on the contrary! This ruling is not only discriminating against people of certain beliefs (put aside for a moment my argument about critics), while sparing others as per the examples above that you have not addressed, but is also going to be close to be in violation of two Wikipedia policies: WP:AGF and WP:NPA, the latter that reads "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."

All I am asking is that you consider changing the wording of the ruling to include something more generic and non-discriminating. Something along the lines of what you say: "people too close to subjects should be discouraged from writing on it, and everyone should respect NPOV", or done without altogether. Otherwise the message that this ruling is sending is: "If you are a Sikh, a Tibetan or Tantric Buddhist, a Ravidasi, or a practicioner of the Bakthi marg, or any other brach of Hinduism, Wikipedia does not trust you can edit articles about your guru". A dangerous precedent indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The actual wording: Editing an article concerning a guru you are a disciple of is governed by the principles in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. Only discouraged, not discounted. Yes, this does cast some doubt on the objectivity of disciples. I think guru here is not an ideal word; but such a comment from the ArbCom on its principles is not a policy, in itself. Charles Matthews 11:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• You acknowledge that this ruling casts doubts on the objectivity of disciples, but note that as currently worded it only cast that doubt on of certain disciples: those related to Buddhism, Sikhism, and Hinduism. That is the concern. So, if you agree that "guru" is not the ideal word, you can suggest to change it to something less discriminating and more generic.
• ArbCom cases are not policy but set important precedents for our project and are used more and more as the basis for rulings on other cases.
• Also note that Wikipedia:Autobiography is mentioned in the ruling, and although it is a guideline and not policy, it contains much stronger wording than "discourage"

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, ArbCom rulings are not policy. The principles stated do not have policy status, and you cannot expect them to be drafted in the way policy is. Any actual policy occurs on a page, with associated discussion, and any actual policy document can be edited by concerned parties. I think there is not much point my trying to defend what has been written, as if it were a policy document. It simply indicates a line of reasoning that Arbitrators have come up with, in a particular case.

Charles Matthews 16:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand then, that this proposed principle is to be looked at and applied in the context of this ArbCom case only. Thank you for the clarification and your patience in ressponding. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas May

You proposed this page for deletion back in July. That was inappropriate, since it had been vandalised. You needed to have at least looked at the page history for that: it was not a newly-created page. In fact you managed have a page of value speedied. Please bear in mind that vandalism is a distinct possibility, in oages with nonsense content.

Charles, please accept my apology. I usually do check a page's history before flagging it for deletion, but this time I apparently didn't do so. If I can do anything to help you rebuild the page, please let me know. And thanks for your prolific work on Wikipedia. --JFreeman 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's restored. I noticed it from a listing by the surname. Charles Matthews 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Pompeiu problem

The article was contributed by a sock of a permabanned User:Bonaparte. It is mostly consists of an image scanned from somewhere. The only positive contributors are the sock and you. Do you think the article is useful or should be deleted? abakharev 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the image should be replaced by text. The Pompeiu problem itself is clearly worth including. Charles Matthews 08:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Proposed decision

New items have been added to the proposed decision portion of the case regarding the merged user, Coolcaesar. Please vote on those topics. Ericsaindon2 04:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems that Ericsaindon2 here added his own stuff to the proposed decision page of his ArbCom case. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I have reverted it [8], iirc, only you and other ArbCom members should only add stuff to those type of pages, not a party in the case itself. I will leave it up to you whatever consequence, if any, should be given to him. Regards. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Allen (surname)

Re: "policy wonks" -- Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! -- JHunterJ 16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been civil. Policy wonk is not derogatory (expert with a detailed knowledge of current or potential government policies). You have removed hundreds of links from pages on the basis of your own narrow reading of a Manaul page. Charles Matthews 16:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lunatic Fringe

For over two years, the Wikipedia article on Mark Steyn has said that he labelled "Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten as on the 'lunatic fringe' in matters relating to the EU." Actually, the column[9] to which Peter Preston was replying (and quoting from: "'lunatic mainstream... from Neil Kinnock to Chris Patten'") uses that phrase exactly once. Here's the entire paragraph:

In the East Midlands, UKIP was in a statistical dead heat for first place. The "lunatic fringe" - UKIP, BNP, Greens, Respect, etc - won 40 per cent of the vote. And the so-called looniest of the lunatics, UKIP and BNP, pulled 32.6 per cent. Between them, Labour and the Lib Dems got 33.9 per cent. What, other than the blinkers of the media-political Westminster village, makes 32.6 per cent the fringe and 33.9 per cent the mainstream?

So Steyn applied the "lunatic fringe" label not to Kinnock and Patten, but to their opponents, and was being intentionally ironic.

I'm having a hard time imagining an innocent explanation for that edit. Do you have one? CWC(talk) 23:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that it should have read 'lunatic mainstream'. Charles Matthews 10:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not an explanation. "I jumped to a conclusion which made Steyn look bad" would be an explanation — a fairly innocent one, too, as compared to (say) "I jumped to a conclusion because it made Steyn look bad". I would really like an innocent explanation here. I sincerely hope you've got one. Do you? Please? CWC(talk) 11:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Honest mistake, actually. 2004 was a rather different atmosphere. Charles Matthews 11:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Czech statement

Dear Charles, I hope you really meant the untranslated remainder of your political statement, which I just translated. All the best and good luck, Lubos --Lumidek 18:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My thanks. Charles Matthews 18:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing my talk page

Charles, thanks for your comments on unit. Next time you edit my talk page, could you please preview the results before saving the page. I will be reverting the changes since you've inadvertently added your comments in the RfA thanks box above. Budgiekiller 08:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list grumble

I'm getting just a leetle bit irritated that when I try to respond on the mailing list, I have to wait twelve hours for my post to be moderated, and by this time it's obscelete, so I have to withdraw it to avoid people recieving messages which don't make any sense...so I never get approved to post! What do you suggest? --David Mestel^(Talk) 09:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. How about writing things that are less perishable? Seriously though, if you want a reference to give the list moderator(s), you can use my name.

By the way, 'advanced mathematician'? I'm impressed. What's

Σ 1/n⁴?

Charles Matthews 09:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If you mean the indefinite integral, it's -1/(3n^3), isnt't it? --David Mestel^(Talk) 10:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I meant the infinite series. I mean, your userbox has the thing that sums to π²/6, so I wondered if you knew what comes after that. This might be fun to guess. Charles Matthews 10:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it would seems that I am stupid; I had always thought that for the sum to infinity you could just integrate from 1 to infinity (since when the sum is to infinity it is like an integral of infinite "resolution", as it were), but evidently I am wrong. --David Mestel^(Talk) 10:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No. But by drawing histogram-type boxes you can work out some fairly useful upper and lower bounds. Charles Matthews 10:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

'Cos I guess that the exact value is basically the sum of the areas of a bunch of histogram boxes of width one drawn under the curve... --David Mestel^(Talk) 10:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. By knowing the 'tail' integral off to infinity, you not only show the sum converges, but can get an honest upper bound for the sum from say n = 10 onwards. About 1/10000 of course, but that way you can be more precise. So calculating the sum numerically is not really a sweat. Now, what could it possibly have to do with π⁴? Charles Matthews 10:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely the integral will give a lower bound, since the graph has a negative gradient? Since the top left-hand corner of each histogram box is at the same level as the graph, the top right-hand will be above it, so the area of the histogram boxes will be greater than the area under the graph. David Mestel^(Talk) 13:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an upper bound available also. You can draw the boxes that lie 'just below' the graph, if you are cunning. Just move the boxes one unit to the left, in the picture you are working with. Charles Matthews 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand - the integral from 0 to inf is the upper bound, and the integral from 1 to inf is the lower. David Mestel^(Talk) 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Although presumably the integral from 0 is undefined, since it involves -1/(3*0^3)? David Mestel^(Talk) 13:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The smart thing is to stay away from that end! Try bounding sums taken from n = 2 to ∞; or something. After all the first term in the sum is just 1 - no mystery there. Charles Matthews 15:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind Σ 1/n⁴. Let me know when we have an answer for Σ 1/n³.  :) Newyorkbrad 16:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work like that. Charles Matthews 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

When are you/arbcom going to stop His Excellency... and his attacks

His Excellency... has continued his racist attacks, now he has forced Pecher a longtime editor to leave completely, are you going to do something or should i start using the same tactics to force His Excellency... and like off wikipedia. He's posting his hate via the Amibidhrohi sock puppet at the moment, again do something.Hypnosadist 11:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We are voting to ban him, put him on attack parole, and I have voted for an additional ban. There are six votes, which is a majority. The case will close shortly. Do you not think that due process is a good idea?

You should of course not retaliate. This only makes things less clear, and is entirely outside policy. Report any suspected sockpuppet activity via the Administrators' Noticeboard. Checkuser can usually determine the truth. Charles Matthews 11:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Due process? LOL! He's had longer than most Murderers get in there trials world wide. He's been through these processes before, the bans get reduced by a friendly (to him) admin and hes back forceing his hate down peoples throats. A total ban is the only acceptable outcome but thats not going to happen is it. When he starts his hate again i'll post every bit on your page, so you can be part of it.Hypnosadist 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK then. What exactly are you trying to achieve here? I have voted in the case. You are entitled to bring matters to my notice. Charles Matthews 11:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Its simple, Pecher has been forced from wikipedia by this hate, You are allowing this to happen. H.E. will get a small ban and this ban will be reduced by Bishonen (again) and he will be back in 2 months max, injecting his hate into wikipedia. Hypnosadist 12:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have no basis for saying either of those things (I am not condoning or permitting anything, and you have no idea what User:Bishonen will do). Charles Matthews 12:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are "condoning or permitting anything" that H.E posts after you fail to ban him completely, and as it should be perfectly obvious to you that he can't be civil. As to what User:Bishonen will do, he/she has reduced H.E. bans twice before and from that i believe that he/she will do it again. Its up to you to stop that from happening!Hypnosadist 12:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats another user has left because of H.E. keep up the good work! Its User:Timothy Usher if you are interested!Hypnosadist 12:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are implying that there should be an injunction in this case, you'd do better to propose that. I don't see that I as Arbitrator am actually responsible here. It is in any case an admin matter, if someone is right now making personal attacks. You did as I suggested above, with the Admin Noticeboard? Charles Matthews 12:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, User:Ericsaindon2

Hi. I was wondering why no arbitrators have added the information from the workshop to the proposed decision about Coolcaesar. I know that we are two different people, but you said that you would consider what he has done in making this decision (since he did initiate the whole thing). Yet, only the stuff presented against me is open for voting. I think you need to add the other stuff that pertains to Coolcaesar that was left out. Plus, I apologize, and have been very productive the past few weeks. Since my ban ended, I have not engaged in edit warring, and have been constructine in my edits. Please reconsider your votes, for I know I did do all that stuff, and I am truely sorry, but know that I have changed from doing that, and I do not get into personal conflicts with others, edit wars, etc. Thank you. Ericsaindon2 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no support in the Workshop for bringing User:CoolCaesar into the case, on the same footing as you. The ban looks likely to pass, since the Arbitrators are unanimously finding against you. The best advice I can give you, is to ask for reconsideration of the bam , when it has run for some time. Charles Matthews 07:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very apologetic, and have been adding constructive comments and edits since my 1 month ban. I have not done anything since then, and have avoided all conflict. Just when I start to get the hang of things, and what to do and not, I get banned. I really would like a second chance, for you will see that I have done nothing but constructive edits in the last month. Ericsaindon2 05:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you...

I am not sure if this is the best way to do this, but there is a bit of a dispute and it seems that you might know what to do about it.

There is a Sharks WikiProject that originally was set up on userspace in October to make up members and then moved to its current, official location in August. Just after that a user, User:Unisouth made another project, but since Sharks was taken he called his Shark. Since he began he has just stolen stuff from Sharks and tried to pass it off as his own. So things that took Editors of Sharks hours to do, he just took and added to his in minutes. I know that Wikipedia is GFDL so this doesnt bother us so much. We tried request a merge with his to have just one project numerous times, but he always refused. Then he made up somethign called a co-project which meant both projects would exist, everyone voted against it but he still tried to implement it. I don't think he understands the voting procedure.

Looking at his userspace everything on his discussion page seems to be about him stealing images and essentially vandalising stuff. I am not sure why he hasn't been blocked, it may sound severe but he is the most worthy person i have met on wikipedia for blocking. What are we supposed to do about this, everything we try to do to reason with him or just continue with the project he tries to outdo us, and it just seems petty. We are trying to improve shark articles while he is trying to have a project to his name, just for the sake of it. --chris_huh 13:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council? Charles Matthews 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Erich Heller article which was moved from mainspace to userspace in May/06

Hello Charles Matthews - On May 19, after discussing the matter with you, Bishonen moved the article on Erich Heller to User:Prof02/Erich Heller so that Prof02 could work on the article with minimal intervention by other editors. At the time, you agreed to the move but called it a "short term solution" and proposed returning to this "in the not-too-distant future." Time has slipped by, and Wikipedia has now been without an article on Erich Heller for 4 months. It honestly seems to me that this sort of practice defeats the operation and point of a wiki. I've just put a note on Bishonen's talk page suggesting that maybe it's time to quit waiting and to reinstate the original public article on Heller. Perhaps you and she could discuss this. - WikiPedant 05:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. Since I was accused, quite wrongly as I see it, of insensitivity in handling the user's wishes to enforce some sort of ownership, I was hoping that Bishonen would shoulder the burden. Charles Matthews 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

references

Hello Charles, You've corrected my edits in the Greek dark ages and I thank you for that, but, for my information, wat did you mean by "avoid dab"? Best Wishes,Antiphus 19:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Avoid disambiguation page". Because Wilkens was changed. Charles Matthews 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

You voted to place me on probation without ever notifying me that such a move was even being considered, thereby preventing me from defending myself, and without providing any evidence whatsoever.[10] --AaronS 16:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You were however notified of the case, on 26 July 2006. Your block log [11] was cited. Charles Matthews 16:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

On 26 July 2006, I was not a party in the case.[12] Tony simply let me know that a case in which I had commented had officially been opened. I was never notified that I was supposed to defend myself. My block log was never cited as evidence, and does not constitute strong evidence, as one block was soon lifted, and two others were later retracted. --AaronS 20:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on WP:ANI. I believe AaronS has a legitimate complaint. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that there was no reason to complain. I was establishing some points for my own benefit. I see Tony Sidaway has commented on the clerking of the case on WP:ANI. On the other matter, the does not constitute strong evidence, as one block was soon lifted is disingenuous, as WMC commmented about a promise of good behaviour (which was not perhaps kept very well); and as we know, 3RR blocks are not meant to be long in the first instance. Charles Matthews 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether the user had a fair opportunity to be heard before he was found to have edit-warred and a sanction was imposed. Granting that there may be little value to reopening a case if the result is predetermined, the sub-question is whether there's any reasonable possibility that the result might have been different if the user had been asked to submit his evidence. Given that one arbitrator (Fred Bauder) voted against the finding because he found insufficient evidence against AaronS, and another arbitrator abstained because he did not think this user's conduct was serious enough to warrant probation, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that a full opportunity for AaronS to be heard could have changed the result. Newyorkbrad 23:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have raised a query at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Proposed decision because I don't understand the basis on which the remedy was passed. Charles Matthews 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond with an observation re your query here because only Arbs are supposed to edit a /Proposed Decision page. I think "majority" as used in the sentence "the required majority is n, means number of votes in favor, not net number of votes. On matters where no one abstained, there were 11 active arbitrators, so a majority was 6, and so the page stated. If something had a garnered 7 votes with 4 opposed, it would have passed, even though the "net" support was just 3.

Here, there was one abstention on the remedy. The Clerk advises that an abstention should be treated equivalently to a recusal for computing the majority (debatable based on real-world analogs, but let that pass). That leaves 10 sitting arbitrators -- but wait a moment, a majority of 10 is not 5, it's still 6.

This case ought to be reopened and either the Probation withdrawn (it seems unnecessary) or the user given proper notice and time to present Evidence. Newyorkbrad 09:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd first like to clear up the voting matter. If the remedy was properly passed, there is the basis on a 'natural justice' issue for this to be raised on WP:RfAr, under 'Requests for clarification'. I see that this has already happened. Charles Matthews 09:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes good sense, but in that case, you might wish to supplement your query per my observations above about calculating the majority. Regards, Newyorkbrad 09:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom Case

I would like you to reconsider one fo your votes in section "Zer0faults has removed sourced information" located here [13]

Per WP:OR it states:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Nescio never provided proof that the Information Operations Roadmap and Zarqawi PSYOP Program were linked. He then links Smith-Mundt through the Informations Operations Roadmap making it a violation of WP:OR. As for the first piece I am removing it because if you review the article, its mentioned 3 times already. However the second is clearly a vioaltion as Smith-Mundt is only linked to Information Operations Roadmap and Zarqawi program is not linked to either in any source. Thank you. --User:Zer0faults 12:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You should note that you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Proposed decision. Charles Matthews 12:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, but what do you think of what I am stating? --User:Zer0faults 12:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really wonder if you understand why 'lawyering' is so disliked here. Charles Matthews 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what that means, WP:OR is policy and very important to Wikipedia. Are you disputing the fact taht Nescio engaged in a violation of WP:OR by adding information that was not actually linked through sources? Why is it lawyering when I defend myself by proving policy was in fact on my side. --User:Zer0faults 12:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did wonder. It is for example a matter in this dispute whether you understand 'summary style'. When you say its mentioned 3 times already, you need not just to say that, but that the requirements of a reader are not served by the repetition. 'Lawyering' tends to hammer on one point of policy, eg WP:OR, and speak in terms of 'violation' and such heavy terms. Making a constructive argument that something is original research is possible lawyering, if it is not persuasive to all reasonable readers, but rather clearly advocacy on one side of an editing argument. What we actually like is the capacity in an editor to settle differences in content disputes with other editors. Charles Matthews 12:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The section I am asking you to look at is not about my ability to settle differences but about the information being properly sourced, ie. not original research. I believe Arbcom members vote on each section by its own principles not a greater arguement. So I ask you again to consider your vote there on the basis of the arguement and principles of that section alone and not anything relating to the other sections. To say I removed well sourced information would be a falicy as its never sourced back to the article, while it is sourced, "well" would be the subjective word. Thank you. --User:Zer0faults 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Strange, you seem to be subjecting me to lawyering now. I have been trying to give you some idea of what 'policy' means (spirit not letter, and not viewed from the perspective who imagine that the most contentious articles are the most significaant). There is only one Arbitrator who agrees with you on this, and the most recent vote in that section goes against you. Charles Matthews 13:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the spirit that permits people to add original research and for it not to be removed? What is the spirit of WP:OR that I am missing? This user constantly added information in a POV fashion. If I was adding a definition of terrorism, well sourced, to the description of the Hiroshima Bombing, then added it to category terrorist attacks, would that be inline with the spirit of WP:OR. Thats making an accusations and most likely would be removed. Please just answer then if you feel Nescio was acting int he spirit of WP:OR when he added those two items to the article, both accusatory in nature. --User:Zer0faults 13:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up trying to discuss this with you, I see the circular logic that will arrive. You vote according to policy then when your votes are against policy ti will become based on the spirit of said policy and not what the policy actually says. Sorry I wasted your time, proceed with your probation sentencing and I will proceed to edit the Wiki, considering I have started about 4 articles now and rewrote 1 in the time I have been here, I think this is completely out of line, especially considering noone actually agreed with Nescio, he completly worked against concensus to maintain an article he created, and I am the one that edited in bad faith. Oddly enough you vote in defense of his posts when he called me a dick, a troll and a fool. --User:Zer0faults 13:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You have to understand that the policy was introduced to stop people posting here their crank theories about replacing quantum mechanics. The fact that many people have tried to make it into a tool for winning content disputes doesn't mean that it should be. Everyone has to be extremely careful in citing policy where its application is not clear. You are now with your Hiroshima example trying to produce some absurdity by stretching some point. My job on the ArbCom is precisely not to produce absurd results from decent principles. It seems clear that if you continue to edit in the same fashion you will have some further problems. I am spending time on this because there is some point explaining the actual operation of policies. As a matter of practical ediing, you need to get some consensus if you allege original research being inserted. Remember, the point is to try to make permanent improvements, by agreement. Just taking some immediate action is not necessarily a solution. Charles Matthews 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Smith-Mundt Act is a law that states the US government is not allowed to conduct PSYOP on American citizens. To add this to the article is an accusation, while I can source it properly, its presence is POV and against WP:OR as I have no proof or any source linknig this act to the program in question. The sources that Nescio provided even state that the program did not target civilians, that its affect on the US was only because of leakage through international media and that all information given out during this program was done in foreign languages (arabic) to prevent the possibility of this leakage. However Nescio still added this to the article, it is not that far off. The Information Operations Roadmap is a program that houses other PSYOP porgrams, it was written to give guidance to certain programs in how not to violate SMith-Mundt, Nescio added this as well to connect to the Zarqawi program, however again no proof was ever given and no source ever mentions this program. He also adds WW2 era PSYOP programs that vioalted the latter made law of Smith Mundt in a further POV fashion. The spirit of this editors edits should surely be considered. Stating terrorism to Hiroshima is actually more on par as sources can be found calling it that, then Smith-Mundt to the Zarqawi program as no sources link the two. --User:Zer0faults 13:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Concensus is actually what we did achieve, Nescio never went along with it, The exact proposal on the Arbcom page is below:

9) Several other editors have supported Zer0faults arguments and edits: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

People agreeing on the merger [20] TheronJ bringing up issue of Global Research [21] Morton arguing the same [22] You can read the talk page yourself, Nescio is actually working against everyone else on that page. I do nto think anyone that used that talk apge agreed with Nescio at all. --User:Zer0faults 13:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, I can read that page too. Four Arbitrators have decided the proposition under 9 is not relevant to how you behaved. Now, we are all entitled to make mistakes. The best that anyone has said for you is that you edited aggressively, in good faith, and assuming policy was on your side. Your good faith is not questioned. What is at issue is behaviour. The remedy being voted on is not intended to prevent you editing. Charles Matthews 15:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but I asked you to look at a particular vote you made. You told me that I was taknig the policy by the letter instead of by spirit and that I should have seeked concensus on the OR issue instead of just acting, I then show you there was just that, a concensus involving everyone but Nescio. However you are still not willing to change your vote. I am not sure what I am missing here. According to your definition of the spirit I was correct, according to the letter and wikilawyer I was correct, so I am still unable to understand why you would not change your vote in that section. Please clarify what I am missing in regard to "Zer0faults removes well sourced material" --User:Zer0faults 15:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The ruling in that one section: you removed well sourced information. My other comments of course were general. If such a decision goes against you, it is saying that your interpretation on OR is not accepted. We think you made a mistake. We want people to be cautious in removing good information, even if they convince themselves there are good reasons. And even if others also agree. Charles Matthews 15:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. Its the only thing I am asking be looked at as I think I have proven that my interpretation of WP:OR was right. According to your definition of spirit, and how we should seek concensus as well as mine which is more to the letter and synthesis of published material. I wasted a lot of time trying to fix that article by removing original research, while it seems not to matter as much to you where your votes are cast, it matters to me as that section is the only one important to me. The article doesnt even exist anymore and Nescio quit long ago, the difference now is if I was right or not. Your vote symbolizes I was wrong, what I am asking you for is why, if by concensus i was right, and by the letter I was right. By your own words you stated we need to make permanant additions and seek concensus in doing it, but by the talk page which you have read, nescio is the only one operating against this principle. --User:Zer0faults 15:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just nevermind, I think I see what is at issue here and this was quite a waste of both of ours time. --User:Zer0faults 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::There is no definition of 'consensus', is there? What we know is that skilful editors avoid problems, by operating as reasonable human beings, and not trying to vote down 'opponents'. That is a separate point, but is important for the future. You say I think I have proven that my interpretation of WP:OR was right. But the ArbCom is not agreeing with you. The reason is that well-sourced material is not taken to be OR. You can start at the beginning of the argument again, but I'm actually trying to add material to the encyclopedia today. Charles Matthews 16:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be more a matter of pride then of policy, spirit of policy or letter of policy. Noone agreed with Nescio and he never attempted to work with anyone on that page, he never attempted to find new sources and never allowed anyone's edits to stand, including mine to the Zarqawi bio section, which were all well sourced and taken from the article on him. I have wasted your time because I believe you were never open to changing your vote and have wasted mine at the same time thinking you would be. Your own words of seeking a concensus are very important and after reading the talk page, how you do not see that over 5 editors attempted to, is amazing. There are 5 editors attempting to work with Nescio and Nescio's just constantly reverting back to his version of the article. But whats there really doesnt matter it seems, its about some unknown undefinable spirit, then even when defined changes again to be something new that cannot be explained. Have a good day. I will enjoy editing Wikipedia and simply ignoring any article that is blatantly in violation of policy since I will be on probation and it will simply be used against me. --User:Zer0faults 16:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosman edits

Hello. Could you let me know why you're creating a number of redirects to Bosman free transfer when you could either use Bosman ruling or piping to prevent these redirects? I'm having to follow up your edits to avoid the redirects. If there's a good reason for this then I apologise, but I thought it was good etiquette to avoid redirects where possible. Budgiekiller 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is actually nothing wrong with using redirects. I created them as I went along, because they needed to be made. I think there are some myths about this, though. I have discussed this on the wiki-en list on the past. For example, it might be that Bosman free transfer needed to be a separate article in the future, in which case what you suggest would have been a lot of unnecessary work.Charles Matthews 08:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! Budgiekiller 08:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Go Edits

You did a good job on shaping up Go (BoardGame). Thanks.--ZincBelief 12:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I could spend more time on go here, but I have written much more elsewhere. Charles Matthews 12:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

J. B. Rosser

May I draw Your attention to this article? I added some "writings by rosser" (from wiki (de)) but encountered some problems in finding available books (and ISBN-numbers). I posted this in the talk:John Barkley Rosser.--85.216.66.107 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Manifold Destiny and defamation

Dear Charles, how are you? How were the elections? BTW a detail. I feel that the article Manifold Destiny (article) is too controversial and should be blocked from anonymous editing. It is about an article in the New Yorker that has become a subject of a lawsuit, and I think that Wikipedia should not be used to back the statements of that article because it could legitimately become a subject of a similar lawsuit. Some anonymous editors have apparently chosen Yau as a target and shouldn't bet given too much room. Best, LubosAbout

Thank you for the warning about the article. It can certainly be a problem, if we just make an online magnet for discussion about someone else's legal problems.

About the election: don't bet on me to win! It was unexpected that we had this chance to discuss global issues about all the projects. Even to find out what the issues are, in the view of others, should be very educational. I still don't know much about that, but I can read the statements by other candidates afterwards. Charles Matthews 21:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kolkhorst etc

I see you have this page: User:Charles Matthews/Bowra I took the liberty of changing G. A. Kolkhorst (I think that was what he was down as) to George Alfred Kolkhorst as there is now a page for him. I then realised that this may have been the wrong thing to do, so I didn't go ahead and change John Sparrow to John Hanbury Angus Sparrow. However, you may wish to do this yourself. I'm not sure what the list is for but I wondered if you are building up a collection of articles on everyone Bowra knew. If you are, that sounds like a good thing. I hope you don't mind about Kolkhorst.--195.92.67.75 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The list is taken from a book of memoirs about Bowra that I came across, so, yes, it is mostly about his milieu and contemporaries. I'll redirect the Kolkhorst link. Charles Matthews 07:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

AaronS ArbCom ruling

Your query about the required vote on the remedy in the AaronS (Intangible) ArbCom case has not received attention. I suspect that the talk page to /Proposed Decision in a closed case is not a very conspicuous location. I suggest that you may want to raise your query in a more prominent location. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I can raise it privately as an Arb, at a good moment. I won't go into why, but good moments have been in short supply just recently. Charles Matthews 18:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand entirely that there have been more urgent goings-on lately and this isn't a priority for anyone. But I think it's pretty obvious that mistakes were made in the case, and rectifying them would be consistent with emphasizing the Committee's reputation for fairness. A motion on this could be put through very quickly if there is consensus among the Arbs to do so. Newyorkbrad 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to pre-empt the issue in any way, naturally. You are correct to say that action can be prompt when there is the will to act and a consensus. Charles Matthews 18:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

BJ Snowden

I know that style wise, initials should have spaces following the period, however from reading BJ Snowden's own website, and the Venus records website, I believe that she's made 'B.J.' a proper noun of its own, and that the move from B.J. to B. J. was incorrect. - BalthCat 22:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The questions are, what are this site's guidelines on names, and, also, can anyone typing a name in be expected to know in advance that idiosyncratic punctuation is being used? Charles Matthews 07:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned, I know that that Wikipedia asserts it is best to space, however I don't think that in some cases the initials become a proper noun, and at that point Wikipedia doesn't have the right to redefine the person's name in order to fit its stylistic criteria. To demonstrate, there are no good Google results for her full name. She goes by "BJ" (Beejay) not "B. J." with an implied pause. That said, from what I've read about BJ Snowdon, anyone who is looking her up while reading a text source will use B.J. or BJ, not B. J., if entering it as seen. For those who are attempting to adhere to "Wikipedia standard" a redirect will suffice, just like the redirects lead to the spaced one now. See: PJ Harvey, T.J. Maxx. - BalthCat 04:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I left this message since I knew it would require an admin to implement. If you prefer, I could move this to talk and wait to see if others disagree, before returning to you to ask for it to be implemented. - BalthCat 04:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

M/z issue

Hi Charles, I wonder what made you vote against me on this issue? I still think that I am defending the official notation of the IUPAC green book and that Nick is defending a minority POV. Could you please give me a hint where, you think, I am wrong in this issue? --Kehrli 17:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are relying on the version 'for peer review only', that is where the problem lies. We have said you cannot (yet) call that official. I personally thought that the way you were writing was in a campaigning style, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 18:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am campaigning for the consensus of the wider scientific community that is summarized in the ISO 31 and the IUPAC green book and I do not understand what should be wrong about this. I do not understand how your arbitration commitee can think that the minority view of some mass spectrometrists is more suited for wikipedia than ISO 31. --Kehrli 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In which subject areas is the term basis function used?

Hi, could you help out here: Talk:Basis function? --Jtir 11:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, in functional analysis. Charles Matthews 11:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Another editor (not me) disagrees. I have copied your reply to Talk:Basis function. --Jtir 12:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Compact groups in Number Theory

Hello, in article "compact groups" You wrote

"Therefore integrals are often computable quite directly, a fact applied constantly in number theory"

I have a general question: what are topological groups used (and what precisely for) in number theory?

Best regards, Sirix 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

At Hecke character you'll see the idele class group mentioned; that's a compact group, with a quite complicated structure. The compactness is morally the same as saying the class number is finite. Further down the Hecke character page it mentions Tate's thesis from 1950. That was the beginning of a lot of work: basically zeta functions and L-functions get expressed as integrals over topological groups, in such a way as supposedly to make their properties more obvious. Charles Matthews 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Math nav aids

I was reading through WP:Math project archives and came across this post of yours about designing a top-down hierarhcal system for a navigation aid for math articles... YOu mentioned a project and group set up to create a system. I would be very interested in something like this. Have you ever seen some of the German math articles, like de:Gruppentheorie? I'm not sure if you know German, but you can probably get the gist. The top box is a set of core fields in math, the next box deals with things more general than groups, the third box deals with things more specific. I think that box is a bit large, but I like the idea of it. What do you think about a project with this goal? - grubber 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I can read mathematical German. The post you cite is from more than a year ago. I would have to think again about the real problems facing us. The category system here has been gradually improved, for example. But introductory sections to articles are probably on average worse. Charles Matthews 07:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think there's merit to exploring how to do it, although I think it needs to be a planned thing rather than an organic thing thrown together by one person. Thanks for your input! I will be posting to WP:Math soon. - grubber 17:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert of Edits to E.W. Kenyon Article

I noticed you were quick to revert some of my edits to this article. Needing lots of dead links is the least of this article's problems. On Wikipedia, I'm sure there are more poorly written and poorly documented texts than this one but I have not seen any. My question is, do you have to be an administrator to add tags such as those below?

{{Cleanup|DATE}} {{copyedit}}

If so, please add them to the E.W. Kenyon article if you concur with my assessment. If one does not have be an admin, then I will add them myself. Thank you. --Wordbuilder 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, anyone can add (legitimate and appropriate) tags to any article. On red links, please remove them only in cases where it is clear enough that we don't need an article, or the link is excessive in context. Red links generally are growth points for the encyclopedia. Charles Matthews 07:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Charles. I'll go ahead and add the tags. As far as the red links go, I don't usually remove them. It's just that article had so many. Your revert restored only the last three I removed and not the ones I removed previous to that. So, it seemed like a fair compromise. --Wordbuilder 00:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal antecedents

Dear Charles, Apologies for defacing your user page with personal chat, but you can always delete it afterwards. I'm not a frequent wikipedia contributor, so I don't know if there is a more private way of contacting you.

A simple question: I was just perusing the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brampton%2C_Carlisle%2C_Cumbria and came across your name in the page history. Are you the Charles Matthews from Boothby, brother of Roddy and Hubert? No big deal if so. I'm just at the age where it is interesting to see what people have been getting up to in the ooh last thirty years or so. If not, then apologies for the distraction. --Timonroad 01:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (Tim Adams from Estate House, Boothby)

Well, hello Tim. The same. Roddy is in Peckham, married with two kids of school age; Hubert is in Oxford. You can use the 'E-mail this user' link to contact people here. Charles Matthews 06:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Topalov vs. Kramnik

Have you heard about the Great Toilet Controversy? In the Kramnik-Topalov FIDE reunification match (the fifth so far), World Champion Veselin Topalov protested that World Champion Victor Kramnik was cheating whilst in the toilet, as proven by the fact that Kramnik visited the toilet a shocking 50 times per game, whereupon the Appeals committee instructed that the players' toilets be locked, and they be forced to use a shared toilet, accompanied by an assistant arbiter. Kramnik promptly refused to play under these conditions, and declared that this showed evidence of bias on the part of the Appeals committee, and demanded that they be replaced. When he refused to play, the arbiters awarded the fifth game to Topalov, decreasing Kramnik's lead to 2-1, and it looks like the game may now be abandoned. It would seem, then, that even the FIDE Wall Demolition project can be undermined by the quality of the lavatorial facilities! David Mestel^(Talk) 18:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, things are better managed in the world of go, is all I can say. Not that there aren't controversies. Cho Chikun has been in a few. Charles Matthews 18:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

About the edit to Hermann_Weyl

Charles, sorry if I edited your work in progress. Still, "you might have waited for me to finish editing" is not a valid argument for contesting another user's edit, unless you place the wip tag in the article(s) you're working on. If you edit a page and press "save", then that is page is considered good for all to see (and edit) as it is. If you need time to work with it, and do not want others to interfere while you complete your work, just use the wip tag, and don't forget to remove it once you're done. (See the history of the Mario Ageno article for an example of this technique in use. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  :) --Nehwyn 11:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK. I'm fairly robust about minor mishaps myself, and don't fuss abour edit conflicts, so I haven't ever bothered with wip. Charles Matthews 11:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Diamond theorem spam

I saw that you removed Cullinane's stuff about the diamond theorem and the eightfold cube from Group action. He has done this other places [23] as well, e.g., PSL(2,7). Are you thinking that a general clean-up might be in order? Michael Kinyon 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Treat on merits. For example his link for the Walsh function page I left. I don't think the 'diamond theorem' is anything serious, so I started with blitzing that. I left something on quaternion group. Charles Matthews 19:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Too time consuming to do otherwise, anyway. Michael Kinyon 19:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Serious

"I don't think the 'diamond theorem' is anything serious, so I started with blitzing that."

-- Charles Matthews at Wikipedia, Oct. 2, 2006

"The 'seriousness' of a mathematical theorem lies, not in its practical consequences, which are usually negligible, but in the significance of the mathematical ideas which it connects. We may say, roughly, that a mathematical idea is 'significant' if it can be connected, in a natural and illuminating way, with a large complex of other mathematical ideas."

-- G. H. Hardy, A Mathematician's Apology

Matthews yesterday deleted references to the diamond theorem and related material in the following Wikipedia articles:

Affine group‎

Reflection group‎

Symmetry in mathematics‎

Incidence structure‎

Invariant (mathematics)‎

Symmetry‎

Finite geometry‎

Group action‎

History of geometry‎

This would appear to be a fairly large complex of mathematical ideas.

See also the following "large complex" cited, following the above words of Hardy, in Diamond Theory:

Affine geometry, affine planes, affine spaces, automorphisms, binary codes, block designs, classical groups, codes, coding theory, collineations, combinatorial, combinatorics, conjugacy classes, the Conwell correspondence, correlations, design theory, duads, duality, error correcting codes, exceptional groups, finite fields, finite geometry, finite groups, finite rings, Galois fields, generalized quadrangles, generators, geometry, GF(2), GF(4), the (24,12) Golay code, group actions, group theory, Hadamard matrices, hypercube, hyperplanes, hyperspace, incidence structures, invariance, Karnaugh maps, Kirkman's schoolgirls problem, Latin squares, Leech lattice, linear groups, linear spaces, linear transformations, Mathieu groups, matrix theory, Meno, Miracle Octad Generator, MOG, multiply transitive groups, octads, the octahedral group, orthogonal arrays, outer automorphisms, parallelisms, partial geometries, permutation groups, PG(3,2), polarities, Polya-Burnside theorem, projective geometry, projective planes, projective spaces, projectivities, Reed-Muller codes, the relativity problem, Singer cycle, skew lines, sporadic simple groups, Steiner systems, symmetric, symmetry, symplectic, synthemes, synthematic, tesseract, transvections, Walsh functions, Witt designs.

-- Cullinane 14:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In reply: we have very well-understood policies on original research. If the 'diamond theorem' is your original research, you are not entitled to use Wikipedia to publish it. You are not entitled to use Wikipedia to create links to your own website, except in cases where the value added to the article in quite clear. On one day earlier this year you added a large number of links your own website, some of them intrusive inline links, some of them attached to questionable assertions about symmetry. I have removed only some of those links. As far as I'm concerned that was fully in line with policy. Charles Matthews 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

'There are quite concrete examples,' he says

At Disjunction and existence properties, you wrote:

There are quite concrete examples in number theory where this has a major effect.

...without giving any actual examples, which I thought had to be a joke--a pretty good joke, but still--until I saw that on the talk page you had added:

The number theory example I'm thinking of is a quite striking one about primitive roots.

Well I'm posting this to say that that's not good enough either. I refuse to believe this until you provide the example!  ;)

Cheers, --Jorend 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You could try reading down the talk page to this:

Primitive roots - I'm thinking of the approximation to the Artin conjecture which says that, at least one out of 2, 3, 5 is a primitive root modulo infinitely many primes: but we can't know which.

A reference is this: DR Heath-Brown. Artin's conjecture for primitive roots. Quart. J. Math. Oxford, 37:27--38, 1986.

Charles Matthews 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jacobson density theorem

(Re: your message on my talk page.) Thanks for letting me know. It was tagged as a physics stub, hence why I tagged it as a physics article. I've now removed the physics bar on the talk page, and changed the physics-stub to maths-stub. Mike Peel 22:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Hi Fellow-WikiPedian, This thing came up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where Troy Once Stood. Would you like to vote? Antiphus 20:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Surname variants

Another editor has mentioned moving Kovač to Kovač‎s or Kovacs; the latter already exists, so I mentioned that he may want to propose a merger. Since I know you're involved in surnames, are there any tendencies for/against combining name variants? See ‎Talk:Kovač#Rename. -- JHunterJ 12:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RfM question

Charles, do you suggest that there should be first a mediation case trying to deal with SlimVirgin's behaviour in general at many different pages, covering many different articles, and the interactions with many different people? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Make that many different pages, covering many different articles, and the interactions with you. I don't understand why you think mediation cannot deal with many different articles. It is very suitable for that. All mediation (and it is not a case, as such, but a process) can do, is to clarify positions leading to better mutual understanding. This is indicated in cases where there seems to be a common difficulty coming from different approaches. Charles Matthews 16:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will see if the others are still willing to file their statements. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Conflict in need of resolution/request for comment

You are requested to offer your comment in the dispute, involving inter alia your name, outlined here. Thank you. — Prof02 09:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a speedy response, but there might be a need, in the view of some, for a follow-up. — Prof02 08:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I should like to invite a second follow-up on the strength of some indications that you may be part of the solution, rather than otherwise. — Prof02 09:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

CfD

Check this out: [24] bunix 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Potential theory category

Hi Charles - you have recently recategorised a number of pages that I created (which all deal with potential theory) as belonging to the category 'harmonic functions'. I feel this is really wrong, as topics such as the Kelvin transform, fine topology and subharmonic functions, are of much wider application than just harmonic functions (which is just one aspect of potential theory). I know that the article on potential theory says that "Potential theory may be defined as the study of harmonic functions", but that is also incorrect - potential theory is actually significantly broader than that. (I tried to change the potential theory article a long time ago, but Oleg just changed it back). Trust me, I am a potential theorist! Madmath789 16:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I do realise that some harmonic function concepts are also available in general potential theory. I tried to make changes only where our article really does deal with harmonic functions; or, let us say, with classical potential theory. For example polar set (potential theory) is one I have just looked at. It depends on subharmonic functions, in the most classical sense. Now logically subharmonic functions are more general, but initially I thought it wise to put all such things in the harmonic function category. There are obviously other ways to handle it. Charles Matthews 16:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have just reverted the fine topology article to the potential theory category, as it is a nonsense to put it into the harmonic function one, as fine topology is solely concerned with sub/super-harmonic functions and hardly with harmonic functions at all. Personally, I would put some of the others that you have recategorised back as they were, but I don't want to start a revert war. Madmath789 16:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could actually have a discussion. You had a prompt answer to your query. I am merely trying to sort out larger categories into smaller ones. You know, a very common criticism of the articles here is that we start in at too abstract a level. Charles Matthews 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were having a discussion :-) I would not object too much to some of the changes you have made, but the fine topology one really does have to stay in potential theory, as it has really almost nothing to do with harmonic functions. Polar set is similar. I would agree that Dirichlet priciple is fine in harmonic functions. However, I suspect that the optimum solution is to do what the AMS Mathematics Subject Classification system does: have potential theory as the main category and relegate 'harmonic functions' to a subcategory, as there are problems with our current system, since some topics (e.g. the maximum principle, Kelvin transform) are actually applicable in wider contexts than just harmonic functions. Madmath789 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We currently have Category:Harmonic functions within Category:Potential theory. We could have some other way of looking at this. For example Category:Harmonic functions could be a subcategory of Category: Elliptic partial differential equations, which then also contained Category:Potential theory, which itself was also a subcategory of Category:Stochastic processes, and so on. Trying to focus on the issue that brought you here, the creation of Category:Subharmonic functions along side Category:Harmonic functions and the sorting into it of the relevant articles could be a good idea. Charles Matthews 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating Category:Subharmonic functions would be a good idea, I think, but is there a danger of over-proliferating categories? I do believe that the AMS system with potential theory containing subcategories harmonic functions, subharmonic functions, pluriharmonic, plurisubharmonic functions, capacities, etc is the way to go. The real problem is that several of our articles really belong to Category:Potential theory and not just to any one of the subcategories (which unfortunately, goes against the changes you have made recently). I don't believe that we should include partial differential equations into the mix at this point, as a huge amount of potential theory (classical, axiomatic, and probabilistic) has very little to do with differential equations (at least in the opinions of many of the potential theorists I have come across). Madmath789 18:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The AMS classification has been discussed here before. We do have rather different objectives. In particular small categories that help people find what they want are good. For example Category:Geometry here is hopefully set up so that bits of Euclidean geometry are quite tidily classified. The AMs system wouldn't bother, just because it is mainly about current research. For us, big categories should get sorted. It can be difficult, precisely because expert views may not get accommodated at the first pass. Charles Matthews 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - I can go along with this, but I feel that we really need to do something with the article Potential theory, which currently starts with "Potential theory may be defined as the study of harmonic functions". This clearly wrong, but Oleg made a very quick revert when I tried to correct it :-) Madmath789 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oleg is reasonable. Just make that 'Classical potential theory ...' and then add your extra comments. Charles Matthews 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lattice points vs geometry of numbers

We seem to be editing at cross purposes — I have been adding articles to Category:Geometry of numbers and removing them from (what seems too small a category to be useful) Category:Lattice points while you have been doing the opposite. Can we agree on using only one category for articles involving lattices? —David Eppstein 15:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I created Category:Lattice points a few minutes ago. Geometry of numbers is a special aspect of lattice point problems; in fact there are probably quite a few parts of the number theory of lattice points that are nothing essential to do with geometry of numbers. So, I think the default should now be that lattices and lattice points go in the larger category. Charles Matthews 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that properly speaking geometry of numbers refers only to interactions of convexity with lattices, but my feeling was that it would be appropriate to put other articles about lattices in there anyway since they're on such a closely related topic. And when using "lattice" in the name of an article or category there's always a big risk of confusion with the other kind of lattice (I just fixed a link like that on Geometry of numbers itself). But I don't feel strongly about the name of the category, what I feel more strongly about is that it should be a single category rather than two separate ones. Do you feel that Category:Lattice points is the right name to include everything now in Category:Geometry of numbers, and if so will you merge the categories? —David Eppstein 15:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, geometry of numbers is properly quite a well-defined subject. It is a natural subcategory of Category:Lattice points, being essentially the set of topics showing how the general lattice and general Banach-space-type norm interact. The subject of geometry of numbers fills about one book; my advisor Cassels wrote such a book, there was another one by Lekkerkerker. So geometry of numbers is pretty much a tightly defined set of topics. Charles Matthews 15:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's a tightly defined set of topics, and I have both Cassels' book and something else (three-volume Dover set? It's in my office and I'm at home so I can't check right now — anyway the Geometry of numbers article could use references). But is making these topics harder to find by splitting them away from the rest of the lattice topics a good idea? And why do you think Pick's formula doesn't belong — it is about volume of convex lattice sets, after all (and applies equally well to any planar lattice, not just the square lattice)? —David Eppstein 15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say 'harder to find'? Category:Geometry of numbers is a subcategory of Category:Lattice points. Your books are probably by Hancock. Pick's theorem isn't classical geometry of numbers by any serious definition. Ehrhart polynomials wouldn't belong either. Charles Matthews 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the new organization is certainly a lot better than the previous (lack of) organization. And maybe "harder to find" is an exaggeration since its placement as a subcategory gives it a prominent position on the Category:Lattice points page. I added Bravais lattice to the lattice point category, btw; I think it fits there while it certainly wouldn't have fit in geometry of numbers. —David Eppstein 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I do have Hancock's book (two volumes, not three) but the other one I have is Siegel's, not Cassels'. —David Eppstein 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

While we are discussing these things, is Category:Tiling the best name, or would Category:Tesselations be better? Charles Matthews 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Tesselations would fit better the name of the main topic article. I don't really think of those two words as having substantially different meanings, but tesselation emphasizes better the mathematical nature of the subject. —David Eppstein 18:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)