User talk:Mathsci/Archive 25: Difference between revisions

Re: Happy Seasons Greetings

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

Sorry

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

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

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

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

Formal notification

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

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

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

Sock

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

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

Thank you

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

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

British & Irish bio articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weston A Price image

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

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

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

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

{{db-badfairuse}}

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

Hadamard question

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

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

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

Your edit to Eugenics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Existence#Formal_languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query regarding User:Mathsci/example

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

Possibly unfree File:Northamptonabingtonpark.jpg

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

Arbitration case

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

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

Georgia/Europe

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

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

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

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

The myth of continents

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

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

ANI

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

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

AE Sanction Case

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

Hello

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

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

The wikipedia jews throw their toys out of the pram (again).

Again Arbcom fails to conduct an independent analysis. How simple would it have been to take a random sample of Noelander's edits to check for misrepresentation, and display that process? How can looking at a few cherry picked diffs from the opposition possibly be reliable evidence for an overall pattern of editing?[6] It can't. The findings are fraudulent. Since when did Arbcom have the power to ban for undiscussed content issues anyway? But this isn't about fairness, transparency and the proper use of power. Arbcom is not an investigative body. Arbcom is bedtime with no supper for those those who provoke coordinated histrionic irrational tantrums among the wikipedia jews. It's merely a thouroughly corrupt and subserviant formality to give the impression of justice. The result was already decided the moment the jews started wailing. Anything for a quiet life. This is like having a case of "negative coverage" of creationism shouted into resolution by a gang of creationists (who happen to be related). But we couldn't hold the jews to the same standard. After all, that would be "anti-semitism". These people need to be voted out.