User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 15

\ Yoi think Om ain no real position. After all, I threatene Acharya S. Well, I didnt. All I did was threaten to post a newsarticle I wrote on her. As predicted hwoever, in my weeks abscence from editign the Acharya S artilce, nto only has the " Slight POV" version remained, but, its been "Improved."

I'm editign it again. Im not Hostile or a threa tot this woman, and havent relaly mentioend my aritl ein months since htye used it as leverag eot shwo what a Monster I am. I knwo you have a low opinion of me, but lets look at relaity. Her disiples want an Aritlce which reads in ehr favour, and are slwoly editign this aritlce to that end. It now has even more Anti-Christain sentement, and further exhonerates and promotes her worldview.

Meanhwile, any atmeot to schange it is met with Hostility by the disiples. In fact, the only raosmn Im on arbitration is this. You think had I left months ago this wouidl hve been resolved peacefully, but this is not true. I did leave breifly and all they did was attack Crazieeddie and AJA.

and they will say anyone is a terirble person for not givign them their way.

I reverted the aritlce tonight. DOnt block otr ban me. the revision is needed unless you think that thr world need ot be wtold that this woman is a brilliant acholar hwo has proven CHristainity a lie and has no real critism to her work, just detractors.

Its a predictable end relaly. they distort what happens ot look liek the vicitoms while continuing to attakc. Do read the Bully Article. THis is hwo they act.

ZAROVE 00:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles,

The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.

The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [1]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [2].

I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.

Best Regards, Lou franklin 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that your implication, that the NPOV policy necessarily fails on topics of this nature, is generally accepted here. Charles Matthews 08:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am not saying that there is a problem with all "topics of this nature". But the NPOV policy is clearly failing on this particular article.

I hope that the proposed remedy will at least be presented for an up or down vote. It may be voted down, but since the other remedies are being considered I believe it would only be fair to vote on removing the article. That is really the only remedy that addresses the root problem. Lou franklin 01:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. You are just repeating your claim. Charles Matthews 12:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My implication is not "that the NPOV policy necessarily fails on topics of this nature" as you suggested. My implication is that the NPOV policy failed on this article, because the group of editors who control the article have make sure of that. Lou franklin 16:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You will be aware that you could ask for this article to be deleted by the usual community process. The ArbCom saying 'delete the article' (which is a remedy well outside the normal) would go against numerous basic ideas here: (a) the ArbCom does not involve itself in content issues, but on how editors behave; (b) deletion is a community matter; (c) only the AfD process has implications for re-creation of an article under the same name. Since the same issues can clearly be raised in other articles, anyway, it seems to be the wrong direction for all sorts of reasons. You would in fact be better advised to ask for a simple merge into homosexuality, through a request. Charles Matthews 17:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I did "ask for this article to be deleted by the usual community process", but the same group of gay advocates that wrote the article just organized again to vote the motion down. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a mechanism to stop extremist groups hell-bent on using Wikipedia to get their propaganda out, truth be damned. If a group of extremists organizes a dozen or so people they can vote in a block, make tag-team reverts to get others bounced for 3rr, etc.

The best solution is to remove the biased article. I suppose that merging the article into homosexuality would be better than nothing since that would result in one biased article rather than two. Who would I request that of? The Arbitration Committee? Lou franklin 22:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

To request a merge, post at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Charles Matthews 22:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the information, but it appears that the same group that controls the article can vote on the proposed merger. What I need is an impartial body, not the same body that created the problem in the first place. Lou franklin 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well of course they can vote, and so can anyone else. If you don't like democracy as it applies here, you will have to be content with the ArbCom's ruling, won't you. Charles Matthews 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only will I be content with the ArbCom's ruling, but getting an ArbCom ruling is my objective! The group that created the article isn't going to vote to have their own article merged. Giving the people who created the problem the power to settle it is not democracy. It is letting the fox guard the chicken coop. I am advocating representative democracy. ArbCom has no vested interest in this article so they are able to serve as an impartial jury. For that reason, they are the appropriate body to vote on the article's removal.

I can see that we are at an impasse, but thank you for your time just the same. Lou franklin 02:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The above exchange seems to be an obvious example of how a serious, honest person can be frustrated by a wanton group that intends to use Wikipedia to further its own malign purpose. Every request that the person made was turned around and used against him. Such exchanges demean Wikipedia.152.163.100.65 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, AnonymousPoster, you could also take it as rank incomprehension of how this place works. I am an ArbCom member, but the ArbCom does not rule on article content. Therefore arguing that it should in this case is pointless. It's special pleading. It does not in fact demean the English Wikipedia that article deletions have an open forum. Charles Matthews 14:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That AnonymousPoster was not me, but he is right and I hope he will email me. Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but the problem is that Wikipedia's mechanism for stopping organized groups from pushing propaganda doesn't work.

Wikipedia articles are controlled by majority. When a dozen gays or Klansmen or Moonies decide to get together to control an article, there is nothing built in the Wikipedia model to stop them. Changes made by outsiders are tag-team reverted by the group. If the outsider persists, he gets blocked for 3rr. This has happened to me several times. Yet the group members don't get blocked for 3rr because they have gamed the system by taking turns removing legitimate changes.

"An honest person" can't get the article deleted because the group votes en masse against it. You can't get the article merged because the group votes en masse against that too. Mediation won't help because it is based on "consensus" and consensus means trying to compromise with the organized group whose very objective is to produce a one-sided article. ArbCom won't help because they feel it is not their job because it is a "content dispute".

Wikipedia's mantra is "assume good faith". But in reality you cannot always assume good faith. The truth is that there are groups right now that are purposely misusing Wikipedia for their own PR purposes. Wikipedia needs a mechanism to stop these organized groups that are not working in good faith. The Wikipedia model as it exists today doesn't work. Lou franklin 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have certainly noted that you do not assume good faith in other editors here. Charles Matthews 06:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"ArbCom does not rule on article content." Is there a limit to ArbCom's indifference to content? Is any degree of crime or vileness permissible? For example, The Aristocrats can be an article that contains a contest to describe the most extremely degenerate criminal behavior. The Hashish article can enthusiastically provide information on the preparation, ingestion, and availability of drugs. How harmful must an article be in order to make ArbCom consider some degree of control?Lestrade 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Firstly, anyone can edit the articles. Secondly, articles can be protected if there is no other way to preserve the content. The matter of where the boundaries of responsibility lie is ultimately one for the WikiMedia Foundation. It is not in any case for the ArbCom's collective judgement. But I think you are confused about the informative function of Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 15:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure anyone can edit articles, but when a group colludes to control an article, there is no way to stop them. You can say that it is not ArbCom's job, but the problem is that it is not anybody's job. If Wikipedia is to maintain any integrity at all, somebody is going to have to make it their job. Lou franklin 12:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have the wrong approach, as is evidenced by the current ArbCom case. I had a look at the hashish article, and it is deficient (as has I think been pointed out already on the talk page there). The question is whether to attribute this to a conspiracy, or whether it is better engage with other editors in a patient process of discussion. A founding assumption here is that it is always better to do the latter. Extreme statements and rhetoric are mistaken; WP always has deficiencies, and there are always enough serious people around who wish to have them fixed, piecemeal. Charles Matthews 12:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Charles, I greatly appreciate your hard work at WP, but you made a goof when you recatted this article (which I wrote). It belongs not in Category:General relativity but in the subcategory Category:Exact solutions in general relativity, along with similar articles on null dust solution, etc. ---CH 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It had no category at all, in fact. So I added a category, knowing it to be approximate. Charles Matthews 12:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments and oversight of these Japan WW2 pages are appreciated. I understand your viewpoint, though with so many edits necessary to make these types of page readable, I have taken the approach that bold editting is a justified way forward. My comments say that the links may never be written not will not. I always aim not to lose any information. Please feel free to add back any redline links that you consider important for the future. I have reinstated Prince Takeda. Welsh 07:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, more satisfactory would be to have the option of reverting your edits to the links, without undoing your good work on the copy editing. Perhaps you could bear that in mind in the future. Charles Matthews 09:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Charles, do you happen to know whether the two parts of Hilbert's seventh problem are related in any way, or if the first part has been resolved? Cheers, AxelBoldt 20:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the first quickly, it seems to ask something like the linear independence over the algebraic numbers of log α, log i and 1, where α is an algebraic number, and log i is of course standing here for π (essentially). I'm sure this is now known, for the non-trivial cases of α. The reason is that both parts are specialisations of logarithmic forms of a general type, which can now be tackled in general by Baker's method. But I'm not sure when the first part was proved (if before Baker). Charles Matthews 21:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't properly awake when I wrote that ... Charles Matthews 12:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Try again. In radians, I think we are taking about some angle ε such that ε/π is algebraic, and also cos (ε) is hypothetically algebraic. By solving the quadratic equation for

exp(iε)

we then see that the question is of this type: can

log &alpha/π

be algebraic, with α algebraic, in non-trivial cases, which here should mean that α is not a root of unity?

This anyway is a question about a linear form

log α + βπ = 0

having solutions in algebraic β, outside the cases where β is a rational number. Charles Matthews 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Charles Matthews, it was my mistake to tag it with unsourced. There is no such requirement. Thanks for notifying me. I have removed the tag. Sorry again. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ retracted this in evidence because it was erroneous, but failed to mention it on your talk page. agapetos_angel 07:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That's highly inaccurate. I qualified the evidence in question. The user wasn't an employee but was specifically asked by an employee. See my evidence section and Standon's for details, and Agapetos, please don't put words in my mouth. JoshuaZ JoshuaZ 13:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Two points.

1: How is Arbitration coming? No one seems invovled.

2: Can you check the tlak page on Acharya S. Skull made personal attakcs. Ive realsied Ive allwoed frustration to lad, and now just try to stick ot he facgts. However they still attacked me and made no real address to wthe problems I raised.

3: Coudl you possibely see to revisin the current article, as its harldy unbiased?

Thanks.

ZAROVE 16:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You can monitor the case at WP:RFAr; it has not yet moved to voting, being at the evidence stage still. You can look at the Workshop subpage to see what it being suggested (and you can participate there). I have blocked User:Rpsugar indefinitely.

I noticed that the article was being edited again. It wasn't in such bad shape, a day or so ago, I thought. Charles Matthews 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well right now it is. Its a promotion for dear old Dorothy, remoivgn the reaosn for her beign "An archeologist ect..." as well as any citisism or less-than-steller performances by her, and addign useless drivel.

I'll revert again tonight, and hope that it remains in th condition.

ZAROVE 18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Acharya S

You have made a comment about no personal attacks on user Zarove on the Acharya page. Why then do you and others allow Zarove to make constant personal attacks against the subject herself as well as the other people editing there? This seems to be an egregious abuse of Wikipedia's policy. Here is a list of the numerous personal attacks Zarove has made on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%5E%5EJames%5E%5E/evidence

Do you really believe that this sort of behavior is acceptable when you can freely remove personal attacks on Zarove? There is quite a bias going on here. This matter is something that should be take up by the Wikipedia organization ASAP. Why isn't this person with his constant derogatory remarks being banned?

First, please be completely clear. Attacks on Acharya S personally are not against the 'personal attack' policy on Wikipedia, which is entirely to do with attacks on other editors. They are however evidence that can be considered in the current Arbitration case that has been brought against User:ZAROVE by User:Michael Snow. They can and will be considered there; they are detrimental to his position.

Secondly, I'm quite aware that there is constant bickering on that Talk page. The conduct of all concerned is provocative. I banned User:ZAROVE for 48 hours earlier today, on the different matter of a violation of the three-revert rule. Provoking others into remarks and then asking for a ban on the basis is hopelessly far from the community norms here. I'm going to consider what to do about it all when the current block on ZAROVE expires. I have no great patience with anyone left discussing there, and I'm certainly not going to take instructions. Charles Matthews 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Charles, is it possible to have some sort of temporary injunction against Zarove? He was at his usual edit-war/revert mode again, and made 3 reverts today. I blocked him for 48 hours for disruption and edit-warring. But his behavior pattern remains consisten, and a temporary injuction from the arbcomm seems to be the solution for now. Thanks. --Ragib 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have tried this once on the ArbCom. I have also heard from him offline, not long ago. If he needs to be blocked now, in your judgement, go ahead. I shall try to compose another message to the ArbCom, proposing that as the case seems to be pretty much stalled in the Workshop, something ought to be done. Charles Matthews 21:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Charles, thankyou for your updates to the Kirillov character formula, which I had been meaning to get back to for some time. I have also been wanting to present a brief exposition for the case of the representations of nilpotent groups (with an example of the Heisenberg group) for which the method was first created, but I am not an expert in this area - hopefully you are? Best, Dmaher 00:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The basics on the Heisenberg group's unitary irreducible representations are at Stone–von Neumann theorem. The connection is presumably made by matching up the central character with the orbits. This is not actually an area in which I have expertise. User:CSTAR has been writing on these matters. Charles Matthews 07:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles: You often add a separate tag to [[Category: links based on the article title, such as

[[Category:1904 births|Richards, Lorenzo]] in the article on [[Lorenzo A. Richards]]

and

[[Category:Wikipedia naming conventions|Theorems]] in the article on [[Naming conventions (theorems)]]

I haven't been able to figure out what this does. Is this a documented feature in MediaWiki?

Cheers! Paleorthid 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's called a sort key (sort tag, sorting tag). The basic idea is to make things alphabetise in a user friendly way; so for example [[Category:1066 births|Smith, John]] will sort John Smith into the S's rather than the J's in the category. See Wikipedia:Categorization section 7.6 for more. Charles Matthews 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. While searching Wikipedia for an article on the publisher Milton Waldman, I came across a red-link to this name in one of your user subpages. Specifically the User:Charles Matthews/Forster subpage. I was wondering if this means anything, and if it does in fact refer to the Milton Waldman that I am after (a publisher who read drafts of Tolkien's book 'The Lord of the Rings')? Thanks. Carcharoth 07:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It could be the same person. I compile lists from books, and then often give the books away, so I may not be able to refer to this one. The general theme there is ancient and medieval literature. Charles Matthews 07:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you know which book this "Forster" is? If you give more details, I will make a note to go and look it up. Only if you can remember/haven't given it away! Thanks. Carcharoth 08:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Icy Fire: Five Studies in European Petrarchism , Leonard W. Forster (Editor), I guess. Charles Matthews 08:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the info. Carcharoth 09:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Charles. There seems to be a contradiction between you supporting an indefinite article ban on Lou, but opposing a temporary ban (rather than supporting it as a second choice). Please don't think I'm badgering you to "go obey the gay cabal and vote correctly", it's just that the ArbCom interests me and if there's something I don't understand, I like to get it cleared up :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The 1.1 thing relates to all articles on homosexuality? That would cover also articles where there is no evidence of a problem. A single-article ban plus probation says 'learn to edit better', which I don't think is harsh. Charles Matthews 07:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. I agree with you, FWIW. Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Charles, Why did you move a section of the disambig page Cockburn to Cockburn (surname)? The short list of places which remain on Cockburn are mostly named after people who are now on Cockburn (surname), and I would have thought it made more sense to keep them together in one place for quick reference. FiggyBee 01:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As a general principle, I think surnames that are at all common deserve a page to themselves. The most important reason is that the list by surname is going to outgrow the other things (placenames, for example): there are just so many biographical articles now created. (I spent all of yesterday on Roberts (surname), for example.) With a view to the future, also, I'd like to see surname pages in a standardised format. Therefore I think we should be heading towards a separation of surnames from 'miscellaneous disambiguation'. Charles Matthews 06:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll tidy up the old page to make it clearer where is named after whom. FiggyBee 14:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Charles. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Northmeister? Northmeister has taken control of the page, and is continuously reverting while asking for page protection. Apparently he's willing to revert any number of times, so long as he gets the page protected on his version. Insists he must keep reverting in order to "uphold policy". Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles, thanks for stepping in, but Proto already blocked him for 24 hours (based on his 8 or so reverts), and I'm afraid yours will undo his... Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. I've left a note at User talk:Northmeister. Charles Matthews 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Charles. I just saw your comments on Talk:Damaged Goods about the article being too much of a fan piece. While I accept that having an article on a Doctor Who novel is a little on the fannish side, as the main author of the article I did try and keep it as academic as I could. Do you have any specific ideas of how it could be improved to reduce the fannishness? Angmering 17:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Charles. Just to let you know that you and Proto blocked Northmeister; Proto for 24h and you for 3h. 24h seems fully justified in this case, so I've unblocked and reblocked to 24h. Hope thats OK. If it isn't, note that I've also unprotected WP:NOR which was the source of the dispute... William M. Connolley 17:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh ... and I thought I was doing so well actually getting User:Northmeister to talk. Did you read what was further up the page? Or any of the discussion on User talk:Northmeister? Charles Matthews 19:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Your shorter block came so quickly on top of Protos that I assumed it was a mistake, especially as I saw no comment on the 3RR page that it was deliberate. I can't see why someone with 8+ rv's deserves anything less than 24h. If NM wants to talk, his userpage is always available. I'm with SV on this William M. Connolley 13:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, by the time you intervened I had actually made some undertaking to User:Northmeister. I had a choice of sticking to that, or making formalities an excuse not to. Obviously a huge revert-fest is worth at least a day's block - but if it starts all over again when that's finished, nothing much has been achieved by blocking. I have exchanged quite a few offline mails with Northmeister about this by now. I'm not going to say I've sorted the underlying problem out - that would be giving myself too much credit - but perhaps I've managed a little 'climate change' there. (Worth saying that previous blocks in the log haven't prevented this, but my reading of that is a need to be the Dutch Uncle, rather than just an enforcer.) Charles Matthews 13:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a fair amount of confusion over this, its true. Hopefully this has settled down now? William M. Connolley 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

N has made half-a-dozen edits today, and seems to be keeping out of trouble. I'm no more confused than usual, all things considered. Regard this as a suspended sentence, if you like: if N fools around in the near future, an extra 24 hours can be added for good measure. Charles Matthews 14:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Charles. I think you know about the Wikipedia:Missing science topics project. Among other things, they have several lists of missing math topics. I was thinking about appending to those lists the entries you have at User:Charles Matthews#Mathematics; I think they may gain extra visibility here. I wonder what you think about that. Thanks, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really mind. There are some random things there, but mostly they are from Dieudonné, Treatise on Analysis (9 books), Griffiths and Harris, Principles of Algebraic Geometry, Switzer, Algebraic Topology, Warner, Representation Theory of Semisimple Groups.

By the way, the Springer Online Encyclopedia seems to be very closely based on the Hazewinkel (editor) translation of the big Soviet Mathematical Encyclopedia. I happen to have that here; it has a very fine index, so finding things in it should be quite easy. We should link to those articles, at least.

There is also a special algebra encyclopedia online (St Andrews), which I haven't seen mentioned. Charles Matthews 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I already added the links from the Springer online encyclopedia to the missing topics, will also add yours, thanks. I will look into the St Andrews encyclopedia. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maths topics, and physics topics of current (well, last 30 years) post-grad interest appear to me to be fairly well covered. The problem is more in chemistry, fluids flow, and similar applied science topics, where the standard is often uneven. As an example, 'shock waves' is a muddle. Linuxlad 10:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds about right. People write here for nothing: applied science subjects are pretty much those where you expect to have to pay for expertise. Charles Matthews 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh? There are no post-graduate chemists, or (semi)-retired fluid dynamicists? Linuxlad 14:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(Though, if you're saying that people find it easier to write off the cuff on subjects they find 'sexy' I'd agree, alas.)

Probably - the things that New Scientist goes on about, rather than where the gravy is. Charles Matthews 16:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of us would see it as the meat (engineers, chemists etc never get the gravy, except perhaps in the halcyon days of CEGB :-)) Linuxlad 20:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles, can I ask you please to restore Northmeister's block. This is a highly disruptive editor who has tried to rewrite and, in fact, overturn the NOR policy, reverting eight times to his version and leaving countless notes on talk containing allegations of corruption and personal attacks. As soon as you unblocked him, he continued on another talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware he has been disruptive. I'm in dialogue with him by email, and he says he will be good now. If (of course) he shows that this is not the case, I will block him. I got here entirely by accident. But I suppose I should persist in communicating, rather than applying a 24 hour block which does nothing positive. Charles Matthews 21:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

He has made similar promises before. This is by no means an isolated event. It is his modus operandi. He arrives at pages he knows nothing about and proceeds to drive the regular editors nuts by making the same points on talk over and over and over again, accusing people who won't listen to him of corruption and cabalism, simply because they disagree with him or are ignoring him, and then tries to draw other (usually very new) editors in to support him by presenting himself as David up against Goliath. He's been here since February and has made only 276 edits to articles but 703 to article, user, and project talk, [3] which speaks for itself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, can I point out to you that the blocking policy says blocks should not be overturned without discussing it with the blocking admin? It's extremely discouraging that Northmeister can cause the kind of havoc he caused yesterday and today, inconveniencing about half a dozen experienced editors and at least three admins who had to deal with it, and then have his block reduced to three hours. Particularly as he has been blocked three times before this (and has only been here since February), and he admitted that he violated 3RR deliberately. This is about as egregious a 3RR violation as I could imagine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's enough. Much of the above can be explained by the discussion Talk pages and endless repetition of quesitioning by another user at American System page and now over Laissez Faire. Further I have made 1076 edits overall, not 276 which is to main articles - the 400 or so edits to Talk have been from the above situation which anyone can read. Further, I have been labeled, called names, personally insulted by yourself and others who always seem to be with you when you get in your numerous disputes with editors. I have never broken my word before - where? I will not now. Please stop insulting me with false allegations. --Northmeister 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not much to say about this. The easy option for me, having discovered my mistake in blocking on top of User:Proto's block, would have been to go back to what was there before. I could have enjoyed my evening. Instead, I get all this panicky talk, WMC (a very old friend) piling in on top of my block without the slightest consultation while I was engaged in various domestic things. And then Tweedledum and Tweedledee on my User Talk page. My attitude: this is about WP:POINT rather than 3RR. I am trying to have it not happen again. If User:Northmeister really wants to jerk me around on this, I can't prevent that; but perhaps the idea that it wouldn't be too smart may prevail. Charles Matthews 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. i thought from your discussion in nominating deletion of Category:Professors (since restored but as a cat redirect) in the autumn that you would vote in favour of on a mass professors category page deletion/renaming into appropriate Category:Academics sub-cat pages nomination i ve just made. Regards, Mayumashu 16:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I put this comment on the talk page:

There should be a discussion somewhere of the real Mobius transformation on the n-sphere, or equivalently, on the one-point compactification ${\displaystyle R^{n}\cup {\infty }}$ . This is indeed called a Mobius transformation, see for instance Beardon, The Geometry of discrete groups. Gene Ward Smith 06:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see a good place for it, and I think it should at least say in the into that "Mobius transformation" sometimes means something more general.

It is sometimes equally good to put in a separate Generalizations section. Generally speaking, the intro is a 'lead section', which can get amplified later, and the reader should not take it unequivocally as a definitive statement. OK, this clashes a little with mathematical usage; but in this case anyway it is not too bad to have it done that way. Charles Matthews 14:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am still finding my way here.

I noticed this[[4]].

Now I reverted this, but what happens when someone acts that childish? You can just do that as much as you please?

It isn't the first name this page has been vandalised, for obvious reasons, I don't think those people have an interest in geometry as well...

Evilbu 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've written something on that user's Talk page. Charles Matthews 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, im confused about something said in a report on the Arbirition case against me.

In this report, it states that i had warred on Gothic Metal, and been placed on Probation. It also says i violated WPCITE. I want to know how this came about, when both myself and User:Parasti provided diffs to me citing sources. It also says this as a 'finding of fact'. In which case, here is the speficic sections which falsly accuse me of not providing sources, and the evidence that supported this, and the accompnying diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Failure_to_cite_sources_and_original_research

[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-03-13/Arbitration_report|Inaccurate Report] Finding Of Fact Contrary To Provided Diffs

Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Parasti's Evidence. Diff from Evidence, taken from [Evidence] Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence. Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence taken from Leys Evidence Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence

I even went as far as to quoting and explaining the sources on the talk page, [5].

I got all these diffs from the archive of the Arbirition case, Here.

I just want to know why all eight claimed i provided no sources, even though another involved party provided diffs of me providing sources, and i repeatedly gave diffs of me supplying sources. Im not having a go, im just confused how 8 Arbirrators managed to claim a 'finding of fact' despite over 10 diffs from two different users =\ Ley Shade 14:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know about a christianity wiki that was recently started and has now moved to it's own server. Because of your interest, I think you would be a valuable member of our team and I'd love to have your contributions.

We are just about ready to go live!

As soon as we finalize the CPOV policy, I think we're ready to "go public" with this project and invite the world! We can submit to DMOZ and Google and start getting some real active hits on that site.

Please take a look and see if this project is something you would like to get behind. the URL is: ChristWiki

-- nsandwich 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is spam: you have no reason to assume my interest. Charles Matthews 08:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Matthews, while urging leniency, please be kind enough to go here, and indicate which of your votes are the first and the second choice here, such that upon clarification, it may mean the difference of being topically banned or banned on two articles. Thank youZmmz 19:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

you know what I mean :-)  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Over the last few months I have worked hard to raise a red flag about extremist groups using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I have now brought the issue to the attention of those at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community.

Now that I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops, what steps are being taken to correct the problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?

There is widespread agreement that "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem. Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again? Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?

Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, including ArbCom and Jimbo, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future. Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?

We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem?

Lou franklin 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, the ArbCom ruled not that you were or were not a 'whistleblower', but an editor not ultimately competent to handle the process of editing with others. 'Caring about integrity' is not the same as licensing types of edit war. There is no way forward on the front of saying that the English Wikipedia is not perfect, and so we should drop standards of behaviour. You continue to phrase criticisms in terms of shadowy 'groups'. You offer nothing there, as you must see, beyond some vague hope that preventing people editing would make for a better article. That has never been the way here. As your case shows, it is those who cannot edit within the rules who deprive themselves of participation. Charles Matthews 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Very poetic, but what about the reader? Does Wikipedia really have no interest in creating a mechanism to prevent propaganda from being disseminated here? Are we saying that "Wikipedia is not perfect" or are we saying that "Wikipedia fundamentally cannot work"? Lou franklin 02:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you think you have some sort of monopoly on these concerns. Since Wikipedia was founded in 2001, NPOV has been fundamental; and ever since the start there have been people saying "can't work". There are daily improvements. Charles Matthews 08:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The people who have been people saying it "can't work" are right. Until we give serious effort to stopping groups who use Wikipedia as a PR vehicle, we don't have a neutral and high-quality encyclopedia; We have this: [6] Lou franklin

I think you could do with reading some things on User:Raul654/Raul's laws; in particular Kosebamse's law (10 in laws by others), and law 5 of Raul's original set. This might at least convince you that you are saying nothing very new about the project. As David Gerard says on that page, too, Wikipedia only works 'in practice'. That is why those who really care about it take a steady, incremental and patient attitude to sorting out weaknesses they can see. Charles Matthews 12:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I promise not to spam you about this, but what you are saying doesn't make sense. This arbitration case suggests that Wikipedia doesn't work in practice. The case shows that there is no way to balance an article when a group organizes for the express purpose of preventing that balance. Having a "steady, incremental and patient attitude" won't correct the article in any way.

There are several easy ways that Wikipedia policies could be changed to correct this. But apparently there is no will within the Wikipedia community to serve the reader. I don't understand that.

Lou franklin 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that you continue to repeat your allegations of bad faith and conspiracy by other editors. This has been pointed out to you. You are now denigrating precisely the approach that would actually allow you to contribute with greater success, working with all concerned. The ball is in your court on this, and you need to see the extent to which your own attitudes are an obstacle. Charles Matthews 08:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.

I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.

As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]

It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.

The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.

I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.

Monicasdude

Not licensed, no rights released

You seem to be ranting here. You have really no idea of my views on the topics you raise. Connecting them with your ArbCom case actually seems to be exploitative, and a diversion from the questions involved in it. Charles Matthews 18:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me  !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

• {{smiley|1}} will produce

  (Friendly smile)

• {{smiley|2}} will produce

  (Confident)

• {{smiley|3}} will produce

  (Mocking)

• {{smiley|4}} will produce

  (Hysterical)

• {{smiley|5}} will produce

  (Hurt)

• {{smiley|6}} will produce

  (Very Sorry)

• {{smiley|7}} will produce

  (Sleepy)

• {{smiley|8}} will produce

  (You are Nive)

• {{smiley|9}} will produce

  (I am not happy)

• {{smiley|0}} will produce

  (No Comments)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people are likely to look for Keaton as a name, but they are far more likely to put the name they are looking for, such as Buster_Keaton, rather than just Keaton. Keaton as a creature of fiction based on lore, the name just fits right, the name is just Keaton, one word. I know what your saying, trust me, my own last name is Keaton, but I do think the Keaton page should stay where it is. It is providing provisions enough with a Keaton as a last name notation at the top. JayKeaton 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. What is more, you moved back without asking anyone about this. I really think minor things from video games should be kept in their place. Charles Matthews 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And the last names of celebrities deserve their own page? Next you will be arguing that wiki/Spears should be devoted to Britany Spears instead of "primitive weapons used for hunting and war". Further someone moved forward without telling anyone about it, I was just correcting this obvious error, thank you very much. And "minor" things? Something that drives someone to recreate summat and sell it on eBay is almost cult worthy!!!! And thank you for not posting the reply on my talk page, I never would have seen this if I didn't bother to chase you up myself. Was mighty big of you mate JayKeaton 08:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through the formal procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves, to move back to the previous situation. That includes the required notice at Talk:Keaton, and the designation of this place as the forum for anyone to discuss it. And undoing a move is not necessarily 'correcting an obvious error'; did you read the move edit comment? So you're out of order with the aspersions. Charles Matthews 10:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I put up a vote on the Keaton page. I put your name and time you requested the move in the title. I put your two strongest arguments as the reason for change, that is whole sentences with nothing changed. Please feel free to change any of the vote secion on the talk page, but do not delete it as I would like to see the vote through. I put it there because you must have forgotten to. Please do not forget to vote yourself. JayKeaton 18:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a formal complaint, but I would like to informally draw the attention of some members of the arbitration committee to the behavior of user Jayjg, an arbitration committee member at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel and its talk page. There is a dispute about the inclusion of a description of a translating group. Jayjg has removed the description I added on (10:12, May 8, 2006), (10:19, May 7, 2006), (23:19, May 5, 2006) Jayjg and other times. While the article is not heavily edited, there is certainly no consensus that the description should be removed, nor has Jayjg supported his reasoning for removing it after being challenged to do so by myself and another editor. I think that as a member of the arbitration committee Jayjg should be held to an even higher standard than at-large editors. TopRank 01:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at this (by the way, citing times that are not UTC makes it a little harder) I tend to agree with Jayjg here. That is because, on other articles. I have seen such descriptions or epithets leading to editorial conflicts that are sidetracks from the main issues. This does seems to be what is happening here.

I only partly agree with your view on ArbCom editors. I have done little controversial editing since being elected there (you can see above that it is not always possible to stay out of trouble). I do think that Arbitrators should be capable of good discussion of controversial matters, with anyone. I would urge you, in such cases, to go to User talk:Jayjg and request clarification. Charles Matthews 10:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Charles. Of course, I actually had "supported [my] reasoning for removing it after being challenged to do so". on the Talk: page, so it's rather surprising TopRank would claim I hadn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This [7] recent edit strikes me as particularly abusive. Many unrelated changes were reverted in the name of reverting a single change, when there seems to be more support in the discussion section for my position than for his. Correct me, but I do not think this is in line with wikipedia policy. TopRank 16:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see a problem with the current version: section 3 has some duplication, and that should be sorted out. As for the description of MEMRI, I have explained that I don't agree with trying to characterise it in the fashion you are discussing there on the talk page. It has a whole page with ample discussion of controversy; and it makes good sense to send the reader there when there is a link. There really are better ways of improving the coverage, which don't get bogged down in such points. Charles Matthews 21:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you deleted the above page on grounds of "student vanity". He is in fact the chairman of Hull City Football Club (as you would surely have found out when you pressed the "what links here" page before you deleted it. Can you pop it back please. If it looks like student vanity, then I'm sure a Hull City fan will sort it out. MikesPlant 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Restored, my mistake. The student edits were on top. Thank you for pointing this out. Charles Matthews 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. 3 minutes, that's not bad ;-) MikesPlant 20:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Charles,

Do you happen to know anything about the Koszul-Tate derivation or the Koszul-Tate differential? It is one of the oldest reqested articles on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Articles_requested_for_more_than_two_years) and beyond my skill to write. It's no problem if you don't know about it or don't have time to write it - I just thought it might be in your area. Nloth 05:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know much about it. A little digging shows it is part of the BRST cohomology approach in theoretical physics, and so is an aspect of Lie algebra cohomology. There is a book (M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems, Princeton University Press, 1992) that is probably relevant. As this is a physics way of discussing something in homological algebra, it really needs an expert to clarify both sides. Charles Matthews 08:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So that book is definitely the reference. There is a jet bundle description of the Koszul-Tate complex by Verbovetsky here [8]. Charles Matthews 21:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Nloth 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Charles. I am writing about a rather small style thing which I seem to be a bit obsessed about however. Per the style manual, one should not put in links in the bolded article title at the beginning of the article. As such,

In mathematics, Weber's theorem is a result on algebraic curves.

should probably better be

In mathematics, Weber's theorem, named after Heinrich Weber, is a result on algebraic curves.

The reasoning behind that (which I agree with) is that Wikipedia links in the bolded definition are somewhat distracting, as they are in section headings and mathematical formulas.

This is a small thing, so sorry for bugging you, but I thought I would let you know. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with your version. Charles Matthews 08:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the discussions here [9] and here [10] before finishing off Terryeo's RfA. A number of us are hoping the arbitrators will vote on banning Terryeo from Scientology-related talk pages as well. Thank you. BTfromLA 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually stay away from name disambigs, because they do seem different. Anyway, feel free to revert the changes to the lead, if you want, though the part about adding ", a" or ", an" after the name is at least one part of MOSDAB that I can't see why it shouldn't apply. --Interiot 16:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I would argue that there's a scale issue - lists by surname get much longer than average dab pages, and next year they'll be even longer. So readability becomes the major consideration. So I disagree with MOSDAB on no piping (piping makes the lists easier to understand at a glance). I agree with it on not too much linkage in the descriptions. I disagree with putting in the indefinite articles, which add nothing and sometimes read oddly (a guitarist with Bon Jovi?).

Anyway, thanks for responding. I hope in time that we'll get more of a consensus about style for these pages. Charles Matthews 17:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As you've commented on CSTAR's talk page re: the use of admin discretion, in general terms, I like to request that you (informally) take a look at what happened at the Cole page. Elizmr seems to have left the project over a statement endorsed by several recently arrived admins (and one opportunist) that have accused her (and I) of a vague charge of "treating other editors unfairly". Armon 16:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like all involved to remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and take a deep breath before saying anything that could be in any way inflammatory. This kind of debate only goes to emphasise that AGF matters most, when it is least likely to be held to. The page is protected, just now, so I hope everyone will cool off. Wikipedia's fundamental policies are designed to get editors through the difficulties of just such situations. They can do that; but everyone needs to be restrained in their contributions. Charles Matthews 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you put a redlink "Kearton" into the Keaton page? JayKeaton 17:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a surname, very closely related to Keaton. Charles Matthews 17:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

SureJayKeaton 17:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Charles. On your rejection of the ArbCom request to reopen Rex071404_4 [11], you 'rejected it in it's current form' and said it was 'best dealt with as a clarification of the old case'. Can you help me understand what I should do to request clarification/change the form of the request, as needed to meet my goal (to have willing circumvention of ArbCom be considered in the 'current block' against Rex (the old case)? Thank you very much for your time. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Requests for Clarification section lower down the page. If it all turns on a sockpuppet issue, plus a previous case, noting that there might be a better approach. I'm still an ArbCom newbie, though. Charles Matthews 21:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just saw that section. I'll check it out - thanks. And newbie or not, I appreciate the help. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This user comes across as very knowledgeable in his field, but very insecure with Wikipedia from a technical point of view, and very likely with computers and the internet generally. I have come across other older people in that situation before (older academics who stuck to their old typewriters until the bank and their children more or less forced them to get a computer and email, that kind of thing), and they tend to assume that everyone else online is much younger and much more techno-savvy than themselves. At whatever point they get past that first learning-curve and start to feel that they can communicate with other people on an equal basis and without constant frustration, this irritation usually disappears. It is probably like that feeling of undeserved momentary stupidity you get when you are trying to communicate something you know well in a language you haven't yet mastered. It makes for easily hurt feelings.

Please let Bishonen handle this issue. I was sort of hoping that you wouldn't reply to Prof02 yesterday, and I don't think anything is won by your doing so again at this point. Your first two attempts to communicate with him were just too terse as a first attempt to communicate with him, and I don't think there is anything you can do right now to repair that. Whatever you say will just escalate the situation. There are other users Wikipedia really needs to get rid of; We have (probably) hundreds or thousands of nationalist and religious POV pushers who are constantly and almost without interference going about their business in obscure articles, ultimately harming the overall quality of the encyclopaedia. Prof02, on the other hand, is clearly a valuable contributor worth keeping. Please cut him some slack, and he will learn the ropes eventually. up+land 10:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit much asking me not to reply at all to a very blunt personal attack. I have made a formal reply, based on policy. That is me speaking as an admin. I have also defended my right to contribute to articles based on German culture (one of my interests). I am well aware that there is a learning curve. I think you should note however that User:Prof02 has essentially admitted reverting very substantial, considered edits of mine, without the slightest talk page or edit comment. We have to get people off that part of the learning curve very quickly. No one thinks that kind of behaviour is acceptable. Charles Matthews 11:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me where this block is logged as I would like to comment on it. I had a look on an/3rr but couldn't see it - did I miss it? Sophia 10:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not logged. Yes, I know it should be. Charles Matthews 11:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just there is a bit of a history with the other party involved in the slow revert war and he's winning by doing full page reverts of everything everytime. James got caught out as he tried to work with a compromise edit I made to try to stop the war. This shows the differences between my version and James' version (there were anon IP edits inbetween as well). [12]. James then reinserted this text [13] to my version (I didn't take it out - it was one of the anon IP's). A.J.A. just reverted the lot [14] thus killing two birds with one stone. Having come across this rule savy editor before I have logged my concerns on the 3rr project page that the current interpretation of the rule is encouraging full page reverts by unscruplulous editors [15]. I have found A.J.A. impossible to work with on Jesus-Myth where his very first edit on the article was to wipe out referenced material that he sees as erroneous [16].

In the circumstances I would ask you to reconsider your block of James as he has shown willing and all the other party has shown is a strong POV and a knowledge of the rules. Sophia 11:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a 24 hour block and just a time out to consider that sterile edit warring is no good at that page. As I wrote there, I prefer (more of) James' version anyway: but if two editor just revert it is pointless. Discussion should go to the talk page, and look at the issues para by para. Charles Matthews 11:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So A.J.A. has free run on the article for 24 hours because he's not interested in working with other editors? This does show the 3RR rule needs updating. Sophia 11:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, he is edit warring too, clearly. But the 24 hours is negligible. A compromise must be found, in which both 'sides' there have their concerns addressed. There are a limited number of references available. Their status is highly variable: that's the point. Policy is more concerned with quality of sources, than quantity of quotes. But partisans always want a little more of 'their' side represented. I'm on the side of quality of quotes, and for that reason (only) I prefer what James is saying, if I had to choose. But this has been going on for months and months. One day makes little odds. Charles Matthews 12:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But he doesn't now have a block history and I have seen that used many times to justify longer and longer blocks. The 3rr rule as it stands encourages full reverts of pages as I'm afraid you have proven. I shall be linking this to the 3rr talk page to encourage someone to answer my point there. Thank you for spending more time on this matter answering my points. Sophia 12:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Charles, I'm sorry to see the new contributor in a clueless frazzle. Unlike Tups I think you've been as patient as the situation has left room for, but it's still a sad sight. Some elderly academics simply can't believe, or ever accept, that others edit them, I guess; it becomes automatically "vandalism" in their mind, and, well, life hasn't suited them for being talked back to, either. I remember trying to persuade my own thesis supervisor, now retired but very active, to try his hand at Wiki articles — I thought he'd be very good at it — but a look of horror came into his eyes as the full outrage of collaborative editing dawned on him. Perhaps this Prof will settle down and come round, or perhaps he'll keep ranting and raving and then leave — essentially, it's up to him, not us. I think what we need to do is encourage him to stop talking right now, because he's making it harder and harder for himself to climb down without losing face. I've just written a reply to him, purely because Tups wished it (though he probably didn't exactly wish for the reply I wrote), but I plan on going quiet as soon as I decently can. Anyway, the reason I'm writing is I've put a question to you on Heller talk: is it OK by you if I userfy Erich Heller? You're essentially the only contributor to it besides the Prof. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

I was saying that there, right when you were writing this here. Charles Matthews 16:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Wylie on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Alphachimp ^talk 19:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Bad revert. I've fixed it. --Alphachimp ^talk 19:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, my most sincere apologies. It appeared to be vandalism at first. Cheers, --Alphachimp ^talk 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Charles Matthews 19:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the slightest reason to delete that. Charles Matthews 20:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me where this block is logged as I wish to comment. If it is not logged then please do so as I think this situation has now reached the stage where outside review is essential. Sophia 18:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have written a reasonably full account on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Charles Matthews 18:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do i have to coment on me agreeing with a prod

Well, I noticed that you were going through a large number. For example you did three in the course of one minute. You quickly did many, on very different topics. Also, you have been a registered user here only for a short time. Charles Matthews 06:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of watching the revert war going back and forth at Acharya S. I've notified A.J.A. and ^^James^^ that if either of them reverts the article again, I will impose a block. I will also keep an eye out for possible socks.

If someone wants to call for my head, so be it. The article's been a playground for bickering editors long enough. They can talk to each other, they can edit somewhere else, or they can be blocked. Enough is enough. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So long as you treat them equally, I doubt anyone will go for your head. Al 20:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good on you. Charles Matthews 17:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm sorry if I have come across as a pain but I hate to see bad editors being given excuses to blur the issue. Their cover is blown now and the problem will have to be solved. Thank you for your obvious dedication to article integrity. Sophia 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

When I write a surname page, I list entries with dates, in chronological order (by date of death, then by date of birth for living people). My reasoning is that if a reader knows a person's first name they can look them up directly, without having to go through the surname page. Someone visiting a surname page to find an article probably knows the rough time period in which the person flourished, may know their nationality, and probably knows something about their profession or claim to fame.

Imagine trying to disambiguate a random passage from a 19th-century historical work, like this one:

In 1809 Wellesley was appointed ambassador to Spain. Later, after the duel between Canning and Castlereagh and the resignation of both, Wellesley accepted the post of foreign secretary in Perceval's cabinet.

Suppose we don't know who these people are, and we turn to Wikipedia for help. We know that they were involved in English politics in the early 19th century. But we haven't a clue as to their first names. A list ordered by date will probably allow us to home in on the right people quickly. But if the list is ordered by first name then we have to examine everyone on it. Gdr 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do surname pages all the time. Some of them are short, some very long. I doubt chronological order can be sustained for long lists. I know what you mean: I was seraching for a Watson from the Elizabethan era, and in that case it would have saved me time to have date order. But I really don't think it scales up well. Charles Matthews 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't written quite as many as you but I have written dozens and date order seemed to work well. Can you say why it doesn't scale? If sections are needed then they can be added by century or decade. Gdr 17:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Another common scenario is to have just initials - this is quite typical of scientific papers, for example. The longer the list, the more potentially annoying it is to someone in that situation. For example Davis - I never quite got on top of Davis, and I think there will be 50% more in a year's time. Typically we are getting a higher and higher proportion of living people. Where we do have dates (and we don't always) chronological will mean that there is a substantial part of a list for which date order just looks fairly unsorted (unless you could for example infer a decade for the birth). Charles Matthews 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been contacted by e-mail by this user who was blocked by you in February for 1 month. They are still unable to edit as the IP they work from is also blocked User:68.146.186.180. Should the block be over now or is there another one in force that I've missed? Thanks Sophia 06:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an editor of low quality, who indulged in multiple inflammatory personal attacks on User:ZAROVE. The mails I have had suggested that some sockpuppet accounts have also been used, and that 'I ought to know' that Rpsugar was also toothfairy. Frankly, the guy was only here to troll on Acharya S, and was very much part of the whole problem. I will look into the autoblocker situation, which is the only reason why User:Rpsugar would still be unusable. Charles Matthews 07:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Something strange when I looked into this (a block I set 30 March, which does not come up listed on the block log). This is logged as a third block for personal attacks. I have lifted it now (there is still possible autoblocker interference, as susual). I think I should note that this is a disruptive user, who admits by email (Alright then, you have blocked my ip addresse, when I have posted as "toothfairy". I assumed you would know that.) that he has been editing while blocked. Charles Matthews 07:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I get the feeling all is not right with this user but lets give him the rope to hang himself with - if he causes problems again it's probably time for an RfC and at least an article ban. Sophia 09:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is further trouble associated with the Acharya S page, I'll ask the ArbCom to hand down a ban tagged onto the ZAROVE case. Charles Matthews 09:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea as it will save time and a lot of wasted effort. Sophia 09:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

hello. This hypothesis isn't economics or finance-related article. It's about sociology and media studies. The template which relates this article to economics articles isn't appropriate.--Sa.vakilian 04:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked at your user page - you don't seem to be a vandal or an idiot - please tell me the reason you moved my perfectly fine golfer page J.C. Snead to another page with the identical title of J.C. Snead and put the original page as a redirect?--Hokeman 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I see what you did now. You put a space in between the period after the J and the C, which is probably the correct way to do things in accordance with Wikipedia Manual of Style. My apologies, it was such a subtle change that I didn't notice it upon first inspection. Initially, I thought this was some type of stealth vandalism or someone just trying to push my buttons.--Hokeman 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• I went back and edited every link to J. C. Snead in the encylopedia, so that it has the proper space between the period after the J and the C. I have a suggestion- next time notify the principal author (or in the case of a large article put it on the talk page) that you are making this very subtle change so he or she does not go ape-shit and think himself/herself under a new, creative form of attack by a vandal.--Hokeman 05:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a thought. But I'm concentrating on surnames, and I come up with a number of instances of just this every day. I have a choice of just doing the move, which takes three seconds, or spending an appreciable time on what is a minor change. The move is needed: quite often there will be links that it picks up. I have no intention of confusing anyone. I suppose most people here would not immediately take me for a vandal from my User page (admin, Arbitrator). Charles Matthews 08:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Attention needs to be given to a new User:Edchilvers. According to Google he is having some almighty political argument with Michael Keith Smith of the Conservative Democratic Alliance. He now appears to be importing his feud into Wikipedia, and for some reason best known to himself, drastically vandalised the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost (I have reverted). I have made minor contributions to articles on right-wing figures and I thought we'd finished with the loons attacking GLF's article. Doubtless GLF has never even heard of this clown and is probably old enough now to be his father!. We surely cannot have people importing their private arguments into Wikipedia like this, can we?. 86.137.204.101 11:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like you to take a look at the removal by Jayjg of a section in the article. [17] This section was first inserted in mid April, when the speech was widely reported internationally. Jayjg removed it not only without suggesting an alternative, but did not make any mention of the fact that he had removed it in the discussion section. That major change was first discussed after two reversions by other people when I brought it up in the discussion section. I restored it to the state it had existed for six weeks pending a compromise being reached in discussion but it was reverted by a different user. I removed all quotations except one so that the section fit better with the others. Jayjg reverted that also.[18] I find this behavior offensive from anyone, especially an arbcom member. TopRank 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The section in question was just a near verbatim reproduction of an uninteresting speech by Ahmadinejad; as part of a cleanup of the article I removed it and explained clearly why in my edit summary. It was subsequently moved to Wikiquote. The removal has also been discussed at length on the Talk: page. None of that constitutes "Jayjg new revert war", and your spamming of this duplicate message on the Talk: page of every single ArbCom member is highly disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC