User talk:C S/Archive 1

Annals of Mathematics
Hi; sorry for the long-delayed response. I never did get a response from JSTOR about the relationship between The Analyst and the Annals of Mathematics, but I did find a 1932 journal article in Scripta Mathematica that says of the Analyst:
 * "And although the ill health of the editor forced its discontinuance at the end of 1883, its influence was by no means ended, for plans were laid which led to the foundation of the Annals of Mathematics in March, 1884, as a continuation of the Analyst."

I've added it as a source to the article. I'm not sure this is conclusive, but it's at least more convincing than the mostly circumstantial evidence that was there before, since it's a citable explicit claim. It's probably somewhat subjective whether we should treat them as separate journals or a continuation. --Delirium (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My Apologies...
for the whole Wiener sausage issue. Udonknome (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. You may want to remove your comment from Talk: Wiener sausage though.  --C S (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Articlehistory
I'm not sure what you were aiming for here, but there is no such action at Template:Articlehistory. I removed the edit to clear the articlehistory error category. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WPM
Hi CS, thanks for your comments on the Math project talk page, although I honestly didn't understand what lesson should have I drawn from this series of unpleasant encounters with MathSci. In any case, I have decided that peace of mind is more important to me than prevailing over an editor in love with himself and his writing, even if this decision results in objectively poorer quality articles on wikipedia. Arcfrk (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Arcfrk, it's been a while. I think as far as "lessons" go, you need to learn not to be put off by unpleasantness by other editors.  Now, I say "need" but of course, I don't mean to tell you how to behave!  But I know that Wikipedia needs contributors like you, and so in that sense, you really do "need" to learn to be persistent and hold your ground.  Don't be put off by people's remarks toward you.


 * It's hard for me to gauge the history between you two, and pretty much impossible, I think, to get an accurate feeling of how things got like this. I don't believe mere perusing of edits will help much, since it's all about timing and context.  But, it looks to me that, for example, on orbifold, you made some good points and made them well.  I don't see a response from Mathsci, so I expect you should be able to implement some of the changes you suggested.  There's no need to walk away simply because of one rather brief exchange.  Right now I'm doing taxes, but I hope to stop by on the orbifold talk page sometime.


 * I think mathematics and Wikipedia have one thing in common. In both, even if someone says you are wrong on the basis of little evidence to the contrary, the best thing is to respond in a matter of factual way, explaining why you said what you said, and why this person may not be understanding such and such.  In other words, it's best to get a bit of a thicker skin, and not get affronted by those who may be somewhat "in your face".  Mathematicians and Wikipedians alike have a tendency for bluntness, after all.


 * There are a couple observations I think are relevant and I hope you will find helpful. One is that in the past, I think you may have reacted badly to some bluntness and then inadvertently escalated the situation by saying something like "removing Mathsci's errors" in an edit summary or two.  Clearly, that's not going to help.  Another thing is that Mathsci tends to ignore completely the possibility that s/he is editing from a particular POV; this is relatively obvious from the von Neumann and orbifold discussions.  But I believe s/he is learning.  If you compare the behavior from early on to now, I think you will notice a positive change.  Some people take longer to catch on to what it means to collaborate together on Wikipedia.  Rather than sink into increasing negativity and grudges against other editors (which unfortunately I see more and more of), I would like to see more experienced Wikipedians helping the newbies through their growing pains.  --C S (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but why did you wait so long?
Thank you for archiving the discussion. I had privately emailed Arthur Rubin to archive the meaningless discussion on WPM, which was almost driving me to delete all my mathematics contributions to WP and leave WP, which I am still contemplating doing. With administrators present, Michellecrisp should not have been allowed to hijack the discussion as she did.

On a more positive note, User:R.e.b. warned me in private about this thread and attempted to delete one of Michellecrisp's provocative unprompted posts on my talk page. He at least understood what she was up to. Another unrelated positive note: I now have, this time anonymously, another Fields Medallist leaving private notes for me on my talk page. So believe it or not there are some vestiges of civilization left on WP. I am disappointed that mathematics administrators allowed Michellecrisp to troll for so long on WPM. But presumably many of them are 21 year olds like sadly departed User:Cheeser1, who started the whole thing rolling. Mathsci (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I believe all of the mathematics admins are well over 21, although I don't know about Cheeser1. Perhaps this random potshot at an entire group of people you don't seem to acquainted with shouldn't surprise me.  In general, you seem to have a big problem with being considerate to others unless they are wearing their Fields Medal.  Part of my reasoning for archiving the page was to stop you from digging yourself into a bigger hole.  Your comments don't put you in a good light (no matter how many smileys you put at the end of them), and I wager everybody's opinion of you was decreasing the more you said. --C S (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for wrapping up the "problem editor" thread on WPM
-- Dominus (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor)
I saw your comment at User talk:Cbrown1023 regarding the "no consensus" closure of this AfD.‎ You may want to participate in the deletion review discussion of this AfD at Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27. I am still rather upset about what happened here. Sock/meatpuppets should not be able to hijack an AfD like they did in this case; making sure that things like that do not happen is what we have admins for. I don't know if you comment about finding even "one admin to agree" is correct (one never quite knows). But, in any event, it is more important to have this closure decision overturned. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article confusion
Thank you for considering knot theory for featured article status. On the Wikiproject Mathematics talk page, you mentioned some issues that many people have had with featured article reviews for mathematics articles. Could you please explain what these are, maybe point out some examples that didn't go over to well. Thanks --  J kasd  23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jkasd! Sorry if I sounded snappish earlier.  I'll try and find some good examples, but right now what you can do is look at the WP:WPM page and note the former featured articles section.  Currently there are 16 FAs, and 17 former FAs.  If you click on the discussions, you can see why they were delisted.  You should be able to get a good idea of what reviewers are concerned about.  I think Featured_article_review/Game_theory/archive1, a recent one, is particularly instructive.  Reading through it, it's hard for me to believe it was delisted.  Another interesting example (more relevant to the accessibility issue) is Featured_article_candidates/Introduction_to_general_relativity, which is an example of an article that did make it to FA, but took some arguing.  The basic gist of the opposition was that the article was too accessible!  Actually, I had forgotten I commented in this one (look near the bottom).  Luckily, this FA will make it more likely that other "introduction" articles will also be able to make it to FA, but I believe some other articles failed before this, because of the same issues.  I'll see if I can find failed FACs, since I think those are the most instructive.  --C S (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment
I apologize if there is an inference of sockpuppetry. I had forgotten that the allegation had been raised. I went ahead and reverted all my edits - if that helps. English Subtitle (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The opposite of epicaricacy
The debate on the article has been rather heated, and has been a waste of resources and time. I disagree with your interpretation, but hope we all walk away from this with no hard feelings. Cordially, --evrik (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this, which is why I didn't bring up some of the related concerns that have troubled me. I don't know what you mean by my "interpretation"; I understand how dictionaries work.  In particular, I understand that entries in an English dictionary are for words in the English language, not other languages.   By the way, Sur de Filadelfia is behaving quite strangely and detrimentally.  If you know this person, I suggest having a talk with him or her.  --C S (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Friendly notice
Only can admin can remove a copyvio I will report this to the Admins if you revert it again. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty clear by now that you're trolling. Call an admin if you like.  I would think it's better that you avoid the attention of the admins though, if you know what I mean.  I will be removing the tag, as that is clearly in the best interest of Wikipedia.  --C S (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * done. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fan letter
I just want to express my admiration for the incisive, yet tactful, analysis you offered in your most recent comment at Articles for deletion/Epicaricacy‎. It's certainly much better than anything I'd be able to produce, taciturn old curmudgeon that I am. If you ever decide you want to be an admin, you'll have my support (assuming that I'm still around). Deor (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. --C S (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You betcha. :)
I honestly didn't know what to think at first, given your edit history. You sure got me good! This site needs some real humor sometimes. Have fun and thanks for clueing me in! Clueless, I remain, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)



PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Shame on you
I just wanted to tell you personally, that your comments are mean spirited. Perhaps you can explain why you feel this is necessary? It is the truth what I said to you about learning respect. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Prod
Hi. I had no idea it had previously been prodded. I considered speedying it, as no notability claim certainly makes it eligible for speedy. As it is, I'll AfD it. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See my AfD nom. I guess his motivations mirrored mine. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A detail in math notation style
Hello. Notice that in average crossing number I changed n(v) to n(v). Punctuation and digits in non-TeX math notation should not be italicized. That matches TeX style: TeX italicizes variables but not parentheses or other punctuation and not digits. See Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. I've not been very good about learning these guidelines, so your help is appreciated.  I'll put in a bigger effort on learning the MoS. --C S (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

List of knot theory topics
I've added Average crossing number to the list of knot theory topics. If you know of any other articles that should be there and are not, could you add those? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any guidelines on how to manage and arrange this kind of list? I presume the advantage of lists is that they can give additional information based on their organization compared to categories.  I note that list of geometric topology topics has some organization that I think is a good start for the knot theory list.  I'll work a bit on the knot theory list later.  --C S (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, what is the purpose of also making the links to the talk pages that don't show up? Is that just a by-product of how you're adding items or is there a useful function behind it?  --C S (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

E-mail
I responded to your e-mail. It seems the outgoing server got switched or something, I'm not sure, but basically you probably could find out my real name etc... I'm not worried, I just want to let you know that I still wish to remain pseudonymous here on wikipedia.  J kasd  20:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * don't worry about it. I'm not that nosy.  On that note, just keep referring to me as "C S" on Wikipedia :-).  I don't like to make it easy for the weird people to harrass me in real life.  I'll send you an email with a weblink.  --C S (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and of course I will.  J kasd  20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the Tube Lemma
Dear C S,

I put up an AFD tag in the article on the tube lemma and this time I did it properly. I feel that this article has not got the write intention from the start; not once does the article mention that the tube lemma is important in proving finite products of compact spaces are compact. Also, the article does not give the general form of the tube lemma which says that if N is an open set containing A X B with A and B compact subspaces of topological spaces X and Y respectively, then there exists U open in X and V open in Y such that U X V contains A X B and is contained in N. If the article is going to start with giving the definition of the tube lemma (and not the generalized tube lemma) and give a proof of this, it should be deleted so that we can start the article properly by giving a proof of the generalized tube lemma. Also, the article is not properly structured. I think that if it can't be deleted, then all the words in the article should be removed and the article should be restarted. This should be the case mainly because the article has no emphasis on the fact that the tube lemma is important in compactness, and doesn't give the general form of the tube lemma which is uch more useful than the tube lemma. I hope you agree that the article on the tube lemma should be deleted. Apart from silly rabbit, no other Wikipedian mathematicians voted and and an administrator (who I suspect isn't involved in Wikipedia mathematics) closed the discussion just because there were lots of votes Keep with only one vote coming from a Wikipedian mathematician. He/she didn't even give a reason for closing the discussion. I think this is somewhat unfair but I don't know what to do. I wanted to know other mathematician's opinions on this apart from silly rabbit's but I can't. Do you know what I can do to solve this problem?

Thanks for your help,

Topology Expert (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. The way the deletion policy works, if the topic is a viable and appropriate one, even if it is written badly, the procedure is to just clean it up, not delete it.  So the administrator acted appropriately.  You can just delete the whole contents if you want and substitute better material.  Or create a redirect to another article called generalized tube lemma, if you wish.  In any case, these actions do not require actual deletion of the article.  Article deletion just means the page with that title will cease to exist.  To edit the article itself (including replacing the entire contents), no AFD is required.  I hope that clears things up.  --C S (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, in general, if you wish to get the opinion of a number of mathematicians, the best thing to do is drop by the discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. --C S (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: automaton group
Re your message: I checked the deleted revision and my deletion was correct. The only content was a link to a website in China. There was no definition of any mathematical object. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon some further looking and careful reading of the link and editor's username, it appears that this was an attempt by a Chinese SEO company looking to spam their link. I don't know why they chose that particular term, but then you never know about these SEO companies. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Re your message: No worries. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for support
I appreciate it. Oded (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear C S,

According to Oded, I make mistakes 'all the time' and that I 'make' up mathematics which is certainly not true. Oded has made mistakes before but I haven't told him that he makes mistakes all the time and that he 'makes' up mathematics. For example, Oded said that the integers were locally finite (which he admitted to be false later on) and that a closed interval in R need not compact. In fact, he told me that I should always give a reference to what I write in Wikipedia. Then, I wrote something that had no reference to it (namely that in a simply ordered set with the least upper bound property, closed intervals are compact) and Oded said that it was wrong. Only after I told him that it was from Munkres' book did he accept his mistake.

I think that the main disagreement between us is that we follow different definitions. Some concepts in topology generally are not accepted by some mathematicians and sometimes there can be several definitions for a certain concept. For example, Oded follows the definition that a closed interval (in an ordered set with the order topology) is an interval that is closed. I follow the definition that a closed interval is an interval of the form [a, b]. The definition I follow is from Munkres' book and in fact most books in topology follow the same definition as I. However, the definition in Wikipedia is different and that is why we disagree with each other. Similarly, Oded follows the definition that a nowhere dense set is a set whose closure has empty interior. On the other hand, I follow the definition that a nowhere dense set is a set that has empty interior. I stated that if a set has measure 0, it must be nowhere dense (which is correct according to my definition but false according to Oded's). So that was another disagreement between us. It is not that I make mistakes all the time (which is what Oded says) so please understand that.

Also, I don't mind being corrected but it seems that he judges everything I write and half the time these judgements are either trivial or incorrect (by trivial I mean that it is that we follow different definitions and that both definitions are correct). I do make mistakes sometimes, but so does everyone else and Oded seems to change everything I write. The trouble is that not everything I write is a mistake and Oded has reverted almost everything I have written for the past week. One of his reasons were that the concept is 'not interesting enough' for the article. I was merely giving a counterexample; according to the article counterexamples were difficult to find.

Please understand what I am trying to say; I certainly accept that I make mistakes now and then.

Topology Expert (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm quite busy now so I don't have time to make a long response. But I do have a quick question.  I don't mean to sound pedantic or obsessed with minor details in this dispute, but your definition of "nowhere dense" says the rationals are nowhere dense, which I don't believe anyone would want.  Can you give a reference?  Earlier you gave Munkres as a reference, but it is not in there.  --C S (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Ok, I see a lot has been going on.  I left my comments on the sockpuppet reporting page.  To summarize what I wrote there: basically I defended you from the sockpuppet allegation, but I think Oded has good reasons for saying what he said.


 * For example, with the nowhere dense thing, the books I have like Dugundji's topology and Steen and Seebach's "Counterexamples in Topology" all give the standard definition. I believe you are simply mistaken about this whole thing, and from what I see, it's not an isolated instance.  I would advise more care in checking that at least your basic definitions are referenced and sourced properly.  --C S (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Crossing number (knot theory)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Crossing number (knot theory), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.wacklepedia.com/c/cr/crossing_number.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Hi CS, thank you for your support at the WPM talk page. MathSci tried to cut you off with some gibberish, but then his whole post had been so delirious that I was at a loss about what kind of response could there be. I am so ashamed to be mixed in it that tried the swiftest way out of that spectacle. Naturally, I am quite unhappy about his bullying, especially insofar as it deters other editors from working on articles that he "owns". I am also disgusted at the extent to which he is willing to go to tout his horn (usually, at the expense of the others). But I wonder if it's worthwhile to spend time bickering with a man who is so full of himself that he cannot even quote correctly a phrase he is complaining about, check the accuracy of his statements, or comprehend that derogatory comments directed at someone usually lead to animosity on that person's part and asks the entire math wiki community to explain it to him (and I'm afraid that Oded's answer to that was nonetheless lost on him). I made up my mind about it back in April, but could not help responding to another round of swill dumped on me. Arcfrk (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Orbifold
Hello. I saw your comment on the talk page of orbifold and have written a detailed reply there, basically agreeing. I see that you have some of the 3-manifold material up for adding to WP on your user page. It would be great if you could do so! Last night, quite by coincidence, my friend and former colleague Mary Rees waxed lyrical about Peter Scott's 25 year old BLMS article. (Might it be something in the air?) Would that article be a good place to start? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Orbifold theorem etc. is all part of the Plan...hopefully it'll all get done eventually. That article used to be one of the few places to learn about that stuff.  Now there are plenty of sources, but Scott's paper is still a good reference, particularly the material on Seifert fibered geometries.  I'm planning on mainly using the book by Boileau, Maillot, and Porti.  It's fairly complete, and includes a proof of Thurston's orbifold theorem.  I agree with your planned outline by the way.  I don't know when I'm going to work on all this (most likely I will do it little piece by piece until one day I am really restless and then I will do a large chunk), but I hope some of the activity can be started.  For example, I know nothing about the orbihedra stuff, so you will have to write the summaries and handle that part of the move.  --C S (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I look forward to reading the article or articles. Your work plan seems extremely sensible - no need to hurry or feel under any pressure at all. (I don't know whether there might be a Seminaire Bourbaki planned on this; that could save a little time.) I'm quite ready to write the summaries for orbihedra, etc. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

email
I don't have access to that account at the moment and won't be on-wiki until Sunday - if it's urgent I'd suggest finding another admin or 'crat (depending on the nature of the query) to help. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Borromean links
See Talk:Borromean rings. The guy still seems confused after I've patiently explained it. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I read the discussion, and I'm not going to bother with a response.  His recent comments make it clear that he has not thought in-depth about any of the questions I proposed he think about to clear up his confusion.  He still insists on using terms like "rotation out of the plane" that are unclear and doesn't seem to understand what the point of the ellipses configuration is.  Your effort is commendable, but I'm giving up at this point.  It's not our job to tutor him in mathematics.  If someone is unwilling to spend some time fixing his misunderstanding, there's not much we can do.  If he tries to change the article, just revert him or enlist someone to watch the page.  --C S (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately it looks as if this whole topic is now becoming clear to him. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Topology
Thanks for the edits to the topology article. I made a slight modification for grammar, but overall it's a vast improvement. Triathematician (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Bad faith edit"
This isn't very constructive. It's a personal attack. And it isn't true. Please refrain from such comments in future, they help nobody. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a personal attack. I think your edit showed you were assuming bad faith of the contributors to the discussion.  There's no good reason for you to say "oh dear" and then place the  tag, unless you thought the good faith comments that have been added to the discussion was just voting.  I think when you characterize long time editors reasoned remarks as "votes", that is in bad faith.  You don't agree?  I would be more than happy to withdraw my comment if you explain why you did what you did.  --C S (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed now that you have given a partial explanation: that you added the tag because "whenever [someone says per...], we add [the tag]". Well, actually, that's not a rule, is it?  Plenty of people don't do this, and "per..." is a perfectly valid argument.  CRGreathouse finds the arguments for keep given compelling, and he is making his opinion known.  Please don't dismiss an experienced editors opinion so lightly.  All the math editors that have made comments thus far have a great deal of experience on Wikipedia.  We don't just argue "keep" because it's a math article.  Believe it or not, we carefully think about whether the article fits policies.  Your insistence on adding the "not a ballot" tag is bordering on disruption.  Stop it.  --C S (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One edit and one revert is not "disruption". You keep throwing this accusations around, but that doesn't make any of them true. Please desist. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 15:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To point out the obvious, I didn't call it disruption. Another revert and I would strongly consider that it could indeed be at that level.  I'm not sure what you are asking me to desist.  "Throwing this accusations"?  I think you weren't assuming good faith, and I said so once.  Where am I going around throwing these accusations at you?  On my talk page where you accuse me of attacking you and throwing around false accusations?  Let's be clear.  I will feel perfectly free to "throw this accusations around" on my talk page, especially in response to you.   --C S (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you've stated your point with Redvers - let other people read the conversation for themselves and come to a conclusion. I don't see the need to prolong the argument at this point. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wise words! I feel a bit sorry (but not a lot) for pushing it like I did.  One thing I find interesting about the whole thing is that you've apparently tapped into some kind of anti-WPM bias.  Seeing the discussion between you and Redvers, it's clear that from the very start, you had inadvertently pushed some kind of button, and when you ran the AFD past WPM, Redvers saw it as an invitation for all the CBM meatpuppets to come in, rather than as a call for expert opinions.  Strange, but I've detected this kind of thing before.  --C S (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Civilisation
This looks like incivility to me. I call on you to review it. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to review it, although the sarcasm-challenged may want to (including the discussions you have been involved in, e.g. User talk: Colonel Warden and Articles for deletion/Duality (mathematics)).  --C S (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I completely understand that response, although its dismissive tone came through pretty clearly. But just to make myself clear -- whatever the intention behind your original comment, I found it uncivil.  I really dislike the promulgation of that point of view, whether intended literally or sarcastically.  Richard Pinch (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're coming through loud and clear, Richard. --C S (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pervasive and important concept
Hi,

Your footnote at duality (mathematics) does not seem to work. Katzmik (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, I forgot to add the template.  Thanks.  --C S (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pausch google.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pausch google.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hear! Hear!
-- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction
Hi there! By the way, user:Perusnarpk made only one edit on the page Dark Matter (which involved removal of a sentence) and thereafter explained it on the talk page. The Friedman edits came after the RfC. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I thought the first Friedman edit came before the RFC.  Anyway, I was including the talk page edit too for dark matter.  Probably there was no need to amend David Eppstein's comment; I was just being a bit anal.  At this point, the RFC seems like it's going to be deleted anyway.  --C S (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pausch google.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pausch google.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

d'Alembert's paradox
Dear C S, I restructured the article. If you like to: can you check and improve. Thanks, Crowsnest (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been keeping an eye on it, and my general impression is that it is much improved. Thank you.  I will take a closer look later but probably I will only be able to make minor modifications.  One question I have is on the Birkhoff material.  Is it fair to say this is a well-known dissent?  Birkhoff has written some strange stuff before.  It's not clear to me that his opinion carries so much weight in this particular context.  --C S (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does not seem to be a route to resolve the paradox for a wide range of flows, see Talk:D'Alembert's paradox. Again also even more disqualifying the H&J claims (apart from the other flaws in their approach). So perhaps the Birkhoff quotes should get less weight. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the full gist of your argument is a bit OR-ish. I expect you can find such an argument published somewhere, but it may not be worth spelling it out in such detail as a rebuttal to the Birkhoff argument.  Unless the Birkhoff argument is really so well known as to merit a mention in a introductory survey on the subject, I'm leaning toward removing it all together.  --C S (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree on the OR of the argument. I have not found references, but as you, I expect something like this to be published somewhere.
 * The Birkhoff quotes are at least outdated due to the advance of chaos theory since then. In those days the inclusion of some viscosity and dissipation were generally thought of as always having a stabilizing effect on the flow, while now we know that in many circumstances -- for nonlinear systems -- the addition of dissipation may be de-stabilizing. Further, while mathematically very interesting, the instability of inviscid flow is not of ultimate relevance for the solution of d'Alembert's paradox relating the discrepancy between potential flow and real-fluid behaviour: real fluids are always viscous (apart from superfluidity). -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked through Keith Stewartson's SIAM review, "D'Alembert's Paradox". He only references Birkhoff once (and it's a different book he co-authored) for some standard details.  It doesn't seem like he mentions Birkhoff's proposed solution.  I noticed Chorin and Marden's book on mathematical fluid dynamics presents the paradox as solved by Prandt and boundary layers.  So it seems there's no doubt on the establishment consensus.  While there seem to be some scattered objections before, say 40 years ago, it doesn't seem to me that Birkhoff's theory in particular gained any kind of popularity, not enough to be worth mentioning.  If you're willing to dig for it, I think the article would be improved by some mention of the objections before the standard theory became solidified.  --C S (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Intersection form
Hey CS, I just want to say I really dig the intersection form article. When I have some time, I might try to add whatever I can. Orthografer (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC) edit: I can't believe it wasn't already there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthografer (talk • contribs) 04:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the encouragement. Right now the article is messy because I just put whatever came out of my head.  I'd appreciate any assistance, especially from a four dimensional specialist.  I hope things are going well.  As I recall, you may be at the finishing up stage.  --C S (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is this article? Intersection form still seems to redirect to intersection theory which is too general. Katzmik (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I found it. Katzmik (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

About Gang Tian
Thanks for your message and instructions. I've read very carefully the article Naming conventions (Chinese). My understanding is generally Chinese name starts with surname, e.g. Tian Gang. The only exception is the person is more familiar to English readers. As for Tian Gang, the Chinese media has a massive coverage on him, and I doubt there are more western readers knowing him than Chinese fellows. More importantly, if we edit it as Gang Tian, how about other prominent Chinese mathematicians, who also enjoyed world recognition? I'm not sure Tian Gang's achievement is comparable to those of Hua Luogeng, Chen Jingrun, Su Buqing or Wu Wenjun. All are famous mathematicians and all their names start with surnames. If we convert them following your example, that's a lot of work.

Now I see Tian Gang also holds a position at Princeton. This may explain the case. Does it mean that as long as a person is hired in a western country, his name should follow English order? Well, let's see the fact. There're hundreds of Chinese scientists existing in Wiki, and their names start with surnames. In future, some of them may be well recognized in the western countries, or be as famous as Dr. Gang Tian, (very likely), or some may be hired overseas and thus gain more popularity. Shall we, at that time, switch the order of their names?

I'm not a mathematician of a biographical writer or something. Either Tian Gang or Gang Tian is none of my interest. But this issue is worth discussing, at least for the uniformity of Wiki style. Regards. Ramtears (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The only exception is the person is more familiar to English readers.. No, that's not what it says.  It says to use the name more familiar to English readers.  It says nothing about taking into account if the person is more familiar to non-Chinese.  As for the other names you bring up, the naming convention says, again, to use the name more familiar to English readers.  I think this answers all your questions, as they seem to hinge on the one misconception.  --C S (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

d'Alembert's paradox
Hello C S. I am still looking at the "Birkhoff" section of the paradox article. Unfortunately I have no access to the Birkhoff book. But Birkhoff & Zaratonello did publish a book titled "Jets, wakes and cavities" in 1957. Which is interesting, since it was based on the results of the route Kelvin, Rayleigh, Kirchhoff, Helmholtz used in order to solve the paradox in the 2nd half of the 19th century. They considered steady and separated potential flow (using conformal mapping, see e.g. Batchelor, Fluid dynamics, 1967, section 6.13) for the case of flat plates, with a region of constant-pressure fluid behind the object. Smooth objects, like circular cylinders, became possible due to advances published by Levi-Civita in 1907.

In this way they could produce drag, but ran into trouble because the separated flow zone they calculated had -- in case of a body moving through a fluid at rest -- infinite kinetic energy. The trouble in their approach was the assumed steadiness of the flow. Of course they knew of the (Kelvin-Helmholtz) instability, leading to the von Karman (a student of Prandtl) vortex street (for e.g. a circular cylinder).

Birkhoff must have been well aware of this, being working on the subject during WW II. So, it seems important to me to check whether the citation of Birkhoff is not taken out of its context by Visitor22 & Egbertus. Was Birkhoff aiming at the instabilities of these separated potential flows? Do you have access to the book? Otherwise I may ask Jitse. Best regards, -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response. No, I don't have the book, and sadly, your comments are now way beyond me, but I'm glad to see you are working seriously here :-).  It seems Egbertus, who is presumably Johnson, just can't let go of this, unfortunately.  --C S (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I will look into other ways to check the Birkhoff quotes. I really appreciate your efforts and contributions with respect to these self-promotional attempts. Good luck and best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ping 2008-09-21
per your request. // Fra nkB 02:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Set
. If for no reason other than the furthering of my own knowledge, can you explain where I was wrong? I did not mean to place in any kind of mathematical correction, but rather clarify a leading sentence that wasn't easy on the eyes (cf using the term "object" twice). &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for asking. So historically there has been two ways of thinking about a "bunch of objects".  One is that a "bunch of objects" is just a mereological fusion of the different objects into one entity; the other is that it is a set of the objects.


 * Let's start with set theory. In set theory you have set.  So take the set containing one object x.  We write it as {x}.  {x} is not the same thing as x (sets aren't allowed to contain themselves otherwise you run into Russell's paradox).  So to take your statement that {x} is the object that results from binding x as a single entity is rather odd, right?  x was already a single entity, so it is already "bound" as such.  So what you meant by "bind" is that you took the collection that contains the given object(s) as elements.  Now, "bind" might be an ok way to state things (even given the confusion in the example of a singleton that I gave), if it weren't for the fact that it sounds a lot like "fuse", which is the basis for mereology.


 * In mereology, given objects x and y, you take their (mereological) fusion. The result is a single object (call it x+y) which contains as parts x and y.  So x is a part of the fusion, and so is y.  This might sound a lot like saying x is an element of the fusion, just as if we were talking about set theory.  But it's not the same.  What is the fusion of just x?  Well, since x is the only thing, the result of fusion is just x.  The part in this case is the whole.  There are other important distinctions too.  For example, the fusion of a+b and c+d (let's say written as x+ y) will equal the fusion of a+c and b+d (the fusion is just a+b+c+d), but if you do the same kind of thing with sets, they may not be equal.


 * Anyway, the important point is this: fusion is different from set. Many people when they first learn about set theory, naively think of a set as a fusion.  for example, they may confuse singleton sets with the element they contain.  Even experienced mathematicians may be thinking mereologically even they say they are working set theoretically (and most mathematicians don't even know what mereology is, at least formally).  However, in philosophy, this is an important distinction that is discussed quite frequently.  One may consider "fusion" a concrete object but "set" an abstract one, or whatever.


 * So what I didn't like about the edit is that it seemed to indicate a confusion between mereological fusion and sets. Even if there was no such confusion, I think it could engender such confusion in the reader.  So keep this in mind while cleaning up the language.  --C S (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for such an in-depth explanation; it was very educational. I will endeavour to explore the vernacular meanings behind terms I use in special interest areas from now on, to avert any such future confusions. Happy editing, &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Debito_Arudou_says_that_the_article_is_still_biased
After reading your message to J Readings, do you mind if you address the responses that were posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan ? I think they may seem uncivil towards Arudou, and since Arudou posted on Wikipedia talk pages I think they need to be addressed. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not sure if and how they are supposed to be addressed.  WikiProject pages can often be more informal than article talk pages (kind of a like conversation around the water cooler at times).  I don't know if Arudou saw those comments; if he did, it probably unfortunately fed into his suspicions and mind-set toward Wikipedia.  In any case, any damage is damage done.  So coming in like the civility police is kind of pointless and, in my experience, is usually useless anyway.  Unless that kind of discussion starts affecting how people actually conduct themselves while editing articles or arguing on article talk pages, I don't think it's an issue worth bringing up.  --C S (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Bowdich
If you want the article kept, & I think it should be, it would really help to upgrade the article. No reason not to do so while its at AfD. DGG (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I might have done that a bit, but by the time I got your message Nsk92 had already done anything I might have done 10 times over. Anyway, I actually don't care much about seeing math bios like this kept.  The only reason I make comments is purely for the edification of the people in the discussion.  --C S (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello C S. Thank you very much! The support of you, Jitse and Ed has been vital to me. Just before the moment you and Ed came into the discussion, I felt quite lonely and desperate about this on-and-on-going discussion. So again: thanks a lot! Kind regards, Crowsnest (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Toto
Please do not revert properly referenced claims. Toto are a very large manufacturer, but they are not the largest. This is known in the industry, and proper references have been given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.114.205 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please keep article comments on the talk page of the relevant articles. I've already explained (yet again) there why these are not proper references.  Do not act like sources that don't say the word "toilet" anywhere are substantiating a claim of largest toilet manufacturer.  Unlike your claims, mine are properly sourced.  --C S (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit
Dear C S,

There several accusations regarding silly rabbit being uncivil on this page. Seeing that you have known silly rabbit for quite a while, could you please participate?

Topology Expert (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is resolved so don't worry about it.

Topology Expert (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've been away on a trip.  Anyway, it seems you summed up the situation perfectly when you said "I don't think it was necessary to create a whole dispute over one edit summary."  Unfortunately, this kind of behavior is a little too common nowadays.  I hope things are well with you.  By the way, I haven't interacted too much with Silly Rabbit, although I suppose in your mind we are linked because we were among the first Wikipedians you interacted with.  Thats just FYI but of course I'm perfectly happy to lend my assistance if something arises and you are unsure of the proper channels for it.   --C S (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied
See my reply at User talk:EdJohnston. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your comment at User talk:Plclark
Just note that I didn't actually claim that I was new until Plclark accused me of not being new on two occassions (as well as accussing me of being "you know who"). Anyway, I agree that both sides said somethings unnecessary, but I was not the one to start it. PST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your edits contradict your assertion. Continuing to insist otherwise is only digging a bigger hole for yourself.  As for "start[ing it", it's fine to try and make a fresh start, but upon doing so, you turned it rotten.  You not only got yourself involved in the very kinds of dispute that got you flack before, but you clearly did so with a pretense of being unrelated to any previous incarnation.  Indeed, it's clear that you started your activities knowing you had the "new user" excuse to fall back upon.  This is quite sad, as instead of dreaming up excuses, you could have spent some time figuring out what you did wrong the first time.  Your recent comments on the project discussion page (and elsewhere) show you've learned little since then.  --C S (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff and his wife, Ruth
I have read your message to me. I have sourced this with a link and a quote. This page is a biography and the mindset of this couple should be stated. They have spent a lifetime deceiving and the personal behavior pattern should be included when sourced. The reason for this page on Madoff is to get to the origins of his life which includes his mindset. If you want to start a new section on Ruth, more will be disclosed, I am sure, go ahead, but her lack of due diligence is a factor, considering she was listed as a director of Madoff Investments. It goes to credibiltiy. thanx.Furtive admirer (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have left my feedback on the bernard madoff talk page for your review on two issues that each have two sources.Furtive admirer (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the edit on the Fork page.
Thanks, Marasama (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re;Essay
Yes, sadly the arbs are divided the same way wikipedia, some with differing abilities, perspectives and senses of humor. Just the way it is. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR
I didn't violate WP:3RR since the fourth revert was more than 24 hours after the first one, so I never reverted more than three edits in the same 24 hour period. --75.13.227.161 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just warning you about 3RR in case you didn't know; I wasn't saying you broke it, although you should realize that admins often don't care for narrowly avoiding breaking 3RR. I hope you thought about my comments on DAJF's talk page.  I don't know if you have a particularly narrow view of Japan, but I would put your attempt to list a Pokemon in a Japanese cultural article on the same level as listing anime with characters seen eating sushi on the sushi page.  --C S (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff Saboteurs
You have a response to your allegations on my talk page and on the Madoff talk page also. You deal with this guy.

Furtive admirer (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

wrong... look at the article history over days of this guy's attempt to revert over and over concerning the word, Jew. he has been reverted over many days. i just happened to revert him today. why not read his justification on the madoff talk page? he stalks jewish bios,not other religions. are you a supervisor/editor/police or something else? you should either mind your own busines or check out his history. i am really not interested in having a conflict here. and then check out my work. you should be grateful for all my honorable efforts, while i have some free time. he has a motive and the others will revert him when they are online. watch and see!! you will owe me an apology, so don't write to me again until you do that.

Furtive admirer (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

did you check out today's reverted edits? i'm not involved, but it is obvious the writer is not giving up. why don't you scold today's reverter and make it a routine task.

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you send warnings to these guys today? Check out the reverted edits on the Madoff history page. 99.180.67.7 (Talk) and 165.134.208.22 (Talk)

Furtive admirer (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to warn them. With minor vandalism like this, I don't usually bother.  I save my warnings for egregious violations, like multiple personal attacks and constant edit warring.  --C S (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Monty Hall madness
Hi - I'm very sorry you got dragged into the MH madness. I have suspected for a while that Glkanter was simply trolling and am now absolutely convinced of this (I guess refusing to listen to a dozen different explanations of the same point should have clued me in). I apologize for having been overly indulgent. Even without Glkanter, the drama continues (from folks who I think have better intentions). Is there any chance you could comment at Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments? There seems to be a meta question about how one decides to mathematically model a specific word problem (MH, being the case in point). I'm not exactly sure, but I don't think the folks who are asking are trolling.

In any event, I very much appreciate your kind words of support and attempts to reason with Glkanter. I am an admin and at this point I would block him myself for disruption, but since he and I are arguably in a content dispute I really can't. At one point he said he is "not arrogant enough to argue math with a math PHD". My user page says nothing about my real life profession, but I find it somewhat amusing that the possibility that I might have a math PhD (and I'm not saying I do or don't) apparently never crossed his mind. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If Glkanter continues disrupting things, a user conduct RFC might be the most reasonable next step, see Requests for comment. If he persists, I can start it (it takes a "second").  -- Rick Block (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Glkanter is very good at misbehaving in a way which skirt the line but then withdrawing when it seems like he's pushed too far. I wouldn't think one could get away with calling another editor a mother fucker and a piece of shit, just by using acronyms like "POS".  Even calling someone "garbage" usually brings down a harsh reprimand.  Undoubtedly, the topic here is also partially responsible for the lack of admin involvement.  In any case, I have no interest in wasting my time, particularly when nobody cares what is going on; the AN/I thread has been archived after Friday's ineffectual responses.  I note that nobody has bothered to remove Glkanter's personal attacks on me.  I shouldn't have to do it.  I don't think Glkanter is a troll, simply lacking in the IQ department.


 * Sorry, but I don't have any time to help you. If the article turns to crap, it's not important to me.  One day, eventually, I'm sure some edit warrior will set things right if that were to happen.  It seems the other people you are in discussion with have good intentions and intelligence, so I'm sure things will work out.  --C S (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing technical tag
Thank you for taking the time to review busy beaver and for removing the technical tag. Having put in a lot of work to make the article more approachable, I really appreciate it. Sligocki (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

MSE
Hello, C S.

I responded to your excellent comments on the A-discussion for Maximum spacing estimation. If you would be able to drop by and respond, that would help me in figuring out how to progress to improve the article. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll take a look soon.  --C S (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Appel
It would be helpful if, instead of dumping a vague "needs cleanup" tag on an article, you would put a comment on the Talk saying more specifically what you think needs to be improved. Otherwise, if somebody thinks it doesn't need cleanup, they can (and should, IMHO) remove the tag. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My initial reaction to your message is that surely a journalist should realize that one can't simply write an article like that with its unsourced, biased views on his work. But I see now you are the one that wrote most of it.  I didn't leave an extended commentary, since I thought the problem evident.   Consider the sentence "Even Appel has agreed, in numerous interviews, that it lacks elegance and provided no new insight that has guided future mathematical research", which, to me, is a glaringly biased and completely unsourced statement ("numerous" also seems an exaggeration to make the point).  Phrases like "even Appel" are leading.  There are a number of mathematicians that do find the proof elegant, so a statement that the major achievement of his career "lacks elegance" needs to be sourced and justified for inclusion.  In addition "no new insight" is something of an exaggerated claim.  The rather random insertion of his children checking the proof is also not a neutral insertion. All these things can be removed easily on BLP grounds, and in hindsight, given your response, I should have just done that, and asked that you argue its case for inclusion on the talk page.  I thought it was simply nicer to leave a cleanup tag.  But I'll remedy that now.  --C S (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I copied over most of my response (except personal remarks between us) to Talk:Kenneth_Appel. Please respond there unless you wish to make personal comments here. --C S (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quaternions
I did not bother to strip history of quaternions of what the Good Doctor called "goo and dribble", but just put in the redirect, with an explanation on the talk page; the pro-quaternion propaganda is too blatant and innumerate to bear. Please feel free to weigh in at Talk:History of quaternions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed Dominus was thinking of WP:CSD, which bans anysubstantially identical  article on the same subject as a deleted article (if not, I can't imagine what he means). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see, recent events have caused me to take a greater interest in the article (who knew my AFD comments would prove so irksome? :-)). But next few days are particularly busy.  --C S (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

searching
I do not normally go back to afds where I comment, nor do I watchlist them, so if you want me to revisit something, please leave a note on my talk page, or email me. I accidentally saw your comment on Mordecki, & I'll check again this evening. DGG (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for letting me know your practice. Re Mordecki, I don't particularly care, so don't bother unless you really want to.  Whether or not he joins the legions of uninteresting academic bios on Wikipedia is a minor thing.  --C S (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Homeomorphism classes of letters of the alphabet, sans-serif capital letters (Myriad)
Hi my name is Alejandro from Mexico. I'm just writing to let you know that I think the letters "H" and "K" are not homeomorphic. The letter "H" has two points of order 4, while the letter "K" doesn´t. Actually the letter "H" is not homeomorphic to other letter while the letter "K" is homeomorphic to "X." -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.242.125.211 (talk • contribs)


 * [Answered on other talk page] --C S (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I have made use of your editing statistics for comparison purposes only at User:Tyrenius/THF re. this post at AN/I. There is no suggestion whatsoever that you have any involvement in any sockpuppetry.  Ty  07:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. For what it's worth, I think what you did was inappropriate and foolish.  Not only did you make some really silly assumptions in your statistical study, but I believe you've crossed a behavioral line which you should have given a wide berth.  --C S (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Taits wraith
Yes, certainly; WP:RFCU. The case for identity will have to be made in excruciating detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV
I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At 09:51, 25 March 2009, you re-created Category:Senior wranglers, despite (presumably) knowing that the category had been deleted in a CfD. The reasons I am presuming you knew that it had been deleted via a deletion discussion are: (1) you participated in the discussion on the "second wranglers" category, where the entire reason for the nomination was the senior wrangler category had been deleted, and (2) you were notified above of the deletion review process for both of these categories. Anyway, it's inappropriate to re-create a category when it's being discussed at a deletion review. If there is consensus there to re-create it, it will be re-created, but you don't need to pre-empt the process. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's never been any consensus to remove those categories, despite how strenuously you argue otherwise. I made an attempt to circumvent ridiculous process, e.g. "delete to be consistent", and to let people go on with working on the encyclopedia.  --C S (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We wait for the results of the DRV: if consensus agrees with your opinion, then it will be re-created. (Mind you, the senior one was deleted first, so there was no logic of "delete to be consistent" for that one.) Your wilful approach to circumventing WP process is a good way to go about getting blocked as being disruptive. Nobody wants to get blocked. As for my opinion, I have an opinion on the "keep or delete" issue and have expressed it, but I don't care too dearly about the results—not as much as you seem to, anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't much care if I get blocked. Not my loss.  If 'caring dearly' is measured by time spent on this matter, I think we know who's spent much more time on this.  I don't have the patience like you to argue this forever with the same people.  --C S (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since it's no loss to you if you get blocked, do you mind if I just block you for the heck of it? :) I'd measure "caring dearly" not initially by the amount of time spent on a discussion, but on whether a user is actually unable or unwilling to respect the consensus result and the process while it's ongoing. If they get past that hurdle, then we could look at time spent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're going to fill up my talk page with extraneous commentary and threats of blocking (smiley notwithstanding), please don't bother, because it's just a distraction. I'm actually working on adding stuff.  --C S (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Note
First, recreating the category can indeed get you blocked, per WP:BLOCK.

Second, the note you dropped at User talk:David Eppstein would appear to be forum shopping.

Since you have concerns about the category in question, please feel free to positively contribute to the currently ongoing DRV (as I see David Eppstein already has).

I hope this helps. - jc37 05:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If asking an admin I trust, like David, for help on a harassment matter is forum shopping, I don't know what you call what you're doing....someone involved on the "other" side of the debate coming to warn me on my talk page. I don't know what your comment is intended to do (other than annoy me), but don't bother leaving me any more warnings.  Get an uninvolved admin if you feel the need for further "helpful" remarks; since you are quick to see "sides" in everything, I'm sure you an appreciate why I might see you as on the "other" side and will not welcome any further comments here.  --C S (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Four colour theorem
I have left a further comment on the peer review page. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hobojaks
Hello. Thank you for filing Sockpuppet investigations/Hobojaks. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cordyceps
Crud. Sorry about that, it completely got by me. Someone suggested it on the talk page and I just blithely followed through. Thanks for setting me straight. - Vianello (Talk) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. But pass the word :-)  Too often people don't bother leaving an explanation of the issue(s) either, which is one reason the tag is supposed to be placed on the talk page.  Of course, that wasn't a problem with the tag on cordyceps.  --C S (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: quantum topology+
Thanks for the kind words. Will take you up in the future. Now still licking my wounds. Henry Delforn (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on the Nathan Salmon page
You changed the tag to "clean-up," which is better. It's not too technical, you're right, it's just too detailed. I don't know exactly what to do about it (I'm doing other projects right now anyway), but I'll think about how to make his bio more in keeping with other bios of people with his status in academia - right now, there's more about his views on names than there is on Tolstoy's views on history or other much more important topics! Thanks for the help.--Levalley (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments
I would as you suggest use the (+) sign at top, were it present; the tab presented is *new section*. My post here relates to your work in mathematics, particularly as related to prime numbers. While my own work is primarily in the field of automata theory (machine self-replication and ontogeny), I do have some interest in prime numbers, associated with their use in cryptography. I have developed a model of selecting candidates, which I think is unpublished. Should you be of a mind to review the model, I will forward a short draft by email (I would need your email address, also). William R. Buckley (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm sorry to say I am not interested.  --C S (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you.
Thank you for obviously taking the time to look into the matter of my RfC. It's disappointing that it's so easy to frivolously use the RfC process to cause so much trouble and disruption, simply because a discussion/debate goes on for a few weeks.

To be fair to Tedder, he did offer helping find someone other than him as a moderator, if I found him to be unacceptable for some reason, at the same time he offered to mediate himself. But the whole thing is suspicious, especially considering how he apparently got involved in the first place ("Someone needs a good wiki-slap and none of the admins seem willing to do this."). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind officially endorsing your comment, here, that would be helpful. Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I updated my comment to reflect more of my thinking upon reading through all the discussions. I don't know if you necessarily want to endorse it anymore, but the essence of what I wrote before, I believe, is there.  I think Tedder's offer of help was in good faith.  But it's indicative of a lack of self-awareness and his/her subsequent actions, I think, indicate a mindset which was never appropriate for a mediator anyway.  I don't believe it's considered required for me to endorse my own signed comment, although I know sometimes people do that.  --C S (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I have no problem with your additions, and will leave my endorsement.  I know I can be better, but I also know I really tried.  Once things start going south, it's really hard to pull it out again.


 * Not that my actual opinion on the legality of lane splitting should matter in any of this, but FWIW, it is this: in those states where lane splitting is not explicitly illegal, whether the action is illegal in terms of being "reckless driving" or "unsafe lane change", etc., it is ultimately a case-by-case judgment call, just as all cases of "reckless driving" and "unsafe lane change" are. I think it's very likely that in all of these states, if there is sufficient room for a motorcyclist to slowly and safely passed a bunch of traffic stopped for a red light, for example, it is likely to be considered legal. I mean, practically speaking, how can an LEO cite someone for reckless driving or unsafe lane change if they're clearly not being reckless, nor are they changing lanes?


 * By the way, if the "bit of blindness or swiftness in dismissing some of the informal sources that have been brought up" was referring to me, I think you might have missed an important subtlety centering on the point that lane splitting through moving traffic on freeways, and lane splitting through stopped traffic at red lights, is really two different things. If someone says "lane splitting is unlawful", they might well be referring only to the freeway type of lane splitting.  I don't dismiss such sources, I just don't consider them to necessarily substantiate the claim that safe as well as unsafe lane splitting is always illegal.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait!
Stop editing these templates and talk it over first. You have a mistake! Debresser (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you insist on your anti-consensus edits, I will take it to AN/I. You are clearly clueless about how these templates are meant to be used or perhaps don't care.  --C S (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Accusing me of "nonsense" and of "vandalism" are serious words. I disagree with you and have my arguments. Don't be uncivil, please. And please address my arguments before you make any further edits. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to be incivil by placing vandalism warnings on my talk page, then don't complain if that gets done to you, ok? Your argument is weak.  Just because less than a dozen misuses of the template occurred over 2 years, you want to argue this overturns consensus?  Don't make me laugh.  You simply do not have any understanding here, and now you insist on getting into a revert war.  Foolishness or vandalism, I'm not going to bother to make a distinction here.  --C S (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mistake: I placed a wp:own warning here, which you removed. You have not shown where such consensus was reached. You have undone a practise of about 2 years. You have not had a look at "What links here" as I recommended you, as your mistaken claim proves. I will wait a day to give you time to think it over and to properly reply to my arguments. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I take it you're not admitting to making a mistake by placing the own warning here. In any case, the consensus is clear.  The wording of the guideline is clear.  Have you read it, or do you want me to take you by the and and scroll down to the passage containing the exact words?  I took your word for it that there is about 20 (I reversed the numbers) article uses in your comment to Rich Farmborough.  It seems there is more like 50.  But as I said, a template that has seen so little use over 2 years being used even 50 times is not evidence against a consensus.  If you don't wish to understand your mistake, I can't help you.  Instead, I will go complain to other people and make sure you don't revert back to your anticonsensus version again.  --C S (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think both of you could do with reading WP:AGF and WP:DR, that's all I'm going to say, just stay civil, I have no opinion besides that, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that the discussion on Template_talk:Technical points to article namespace with 6 against 4. But no steps were taken to implement that consensus. I'll draw up a proposal in the next few days. Since "expert" templates are article namespace template, the proposal will be to place Technical (expert) in articles, and possibly Technical as well. Perhaps even merge the two templates. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've revived this discussion here, adding a new proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I kindly request you not to add comments inside the text of my proposal. The right place to do so is inside the discussion area. There you can address all related issues. Note that this is not an article, to be edited as you please. It is a proposal and should not be "hacked" into. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As though to prove your point, somebody made this edit. Debresser (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's funny. I presume he didn't check the timestamps or current discussion first.  That user isn't particularly known for trying to make a point or pull pranks.  --C S (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We have so far three reactions to my proposal. All of them prefering the talk page. I'd like to give it another week, and then come to a conclusion. Does that sound fair to you?

Do you think we should remove the irrelevant parts from the discussion? I am refering to our quibeling over non-essential issues there. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A week or two weeks sounds reasonable. I'd be fine with a month.  Any more and then it starts seeming a bit arbitrary.  Ok if you want to remove nonessentials, that's fine.  Maybe cancel the merge request for now too, until the outcome of the talk page versus article placement is resolved.  --C S (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think one discusson is clouding the other? Debresser (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a bit. Merging is more of a technical issue.  It would be inconvenient to have two templates, but nothing more.  The placement issue seems more fundamental.  --C S (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll do that. I removed part of the discussion that was off--topic. If I rmoved to much, you can just revert me. You could also remove some more, if you think that there is more off-topic discussion there. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR stuff
I've replied to your comments on my talk page which I really don't feel like pasting over here.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

SocialSense
Please visit the article to view my updated referances. Best--PiRSqr (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:POINT
Re: "I don't know if I appreciate your rather" Then why mention it in an inappropriate use of a talk page?

Sorry. I think it's best to repeat important information, such as why people may be blocked. You're right though that the second revert wasn't a good way to de-escalate any tensions. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

MSE
As you kindly gave advice earlier, I would like to let you know that I have reopened WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Maximum spacing estimation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

About Godel's theorem and Students Intellectual Abilities
Sorry for the late response to your comment. You said a while ago that the reason students like the proof I gave of Godel's theorem is because they are somehow intellectually inferior, and they are being bullied into liking it. You gave the example of when you convinced a classroom that there is an inconsistency in PA.

I presented Godel's theorem in this exact way to many people, including at least one very good mathematics professor who I respect very much. Unlike the editors here, not a single one of them were confused about its correctness (at least not after thinking about it), and not a single one thought that Soare's textbook is clearer. The key issue is that a few of the editors here, despite their degrees and experience, are just not up to the level of mathematics undergraduates. They reject material which is correct based on the bad vibes that they get when something worded in a slightly different way. This is very bad for mathematics articles, because rewording proofs is the very essence of clear exposition.

Regarding your claim that you convinced undergraduates that there is an inconsistency in PA, I can assure you that good undergraduates know when you are full of it. They just won't tell you. I have had similar experiences: the professor would say something idiotic, and you have to go along with it because of the power differential, but you don't actually believe anything that these people say.Likebox (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fake food in Japan
You don't see this as much anymore in the states, but in the 1970s and 1980s, it was all over California, and it fascinated me to no end. I noticed early on that the Japanese restaurants had superior food displays, and very often their fake food in the window looked better than the real thing and drew people into the restaurant. I also remember touring the appliance sections in department stores, and finding fake plastic food in the new refrigerators for sale, from eggs to fruit to steaks and even chicken. Thanks for the memories. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Monty Hall problem
You are invited to join the discussion at. Rick Block (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (Using )

User conduct RFC
Hi - Your comments would be appreciated at Requests for comment/Glkanter. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fake 3-ball
Hi, it seem you created a redirect fromFake 3-ball to ball (mathematics). One reader questioned what is that, and now I am curious myself. Would you care to reply in Talk:ball (mathematics)? Thanks, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello C S! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Cameron Gordon (mathematician) -
 * 2) John Fry (businessman) -
 * 3) John Hedgecoe -

Civil?
I guess you forgot civil when you "semi-retired". The edit summary "Actually they do; rather than remove sources you haven't read in order to make it easier to push for a deletion, try doing something constructive" sure isn't civil. It not only assumes bad faith, you somehow think you're in a position to "suggest" what I should be doing? Since you imply that you have copies of the 1982 Kung Fu magazine article, would you be so kind as to give me the link or email me a copy of it? I'd love to read it. And I'd like to hear you explain what justifies your claim that I am "pushing for a deletion"? I'd say keep based on the NY Times article alone if it went to AfD today. (good work on getting that one BTW). Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You removed the sources without having read them, without having understood their relation to the topic. In fact, the Green essay devotes quite a bit of space to Jailhouse Rock as you would have noticed if you had bothered to read it (you can find it on Google Books).  As for the Inside Kung Fu article you seem to have trouble finding, if you had taken a look at the Stick Grappler archive webpage that you so helpfully removed from the external links section, you would have found this.  As I commented in the html code (hidden so it wouldn't show and distract readers), I'm not so sure that article is as relevant as the others, but there is a relationship, primarily via Dennis Newsome, who obviously considers it relevant.


 * What you're doing wasn't constructive by any stretch of the imagination. You removed sources without having checked them out.  You made no effort to find sources.  You did not read the article thoroughly enough to realize other contributors had left viable sources embedded throughout.  You only read it briefly enough to remove the Stick Grappler link, which actually contained numerous links and references and valuable info.


 * After removing sources that would have given the article a fighting chance if investigated by any diligent contributor, you then prodded it, saying the sourcing wasn't good enough. Rather than assume you are horribly inept or incredibly stupid, I assumed your quest to cleanse Wikipedia of poorly sourced martial arts articles had mislead you into lumping the Jailhouse Rock article with other articles of dubious origin.


 * As for bad faith, I think you have trouble understanding what this means. As in any forum or discussion, people let their biases govern how they process and display information.  There are many well-meaning contributors to Wikipedia who let their zeal for deletion (or keeping an article) cloud their judgment.  Even do something like "helpfully" delete useful sources by quoting some policy or other and then nominating an article for deletion without somehow realizing that people would vote "keep" if those sources weren't deleted.  Your actions match those of someone who let their enthusiasm for cleanup get out of hand somehow.  You might not like having this pointed out, but this is in no way a sign of me assuming bad faith.  I'm sure you have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind.  I also think clearly your actions are those of someone "pushing" to delete something.  The fact that I said this explicitly doesn't make it an assumption of bad faith all of a sudden.  Also, the fact that you don't like what I said doesn't make my words "uncivil".  I'm sure some people would.  But I'm sure many others would understand where I'm coming from and find my rebuke of your actions more than justified.  --C S (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I don't consider "Stick Grappler" to be a reliable source, I wouldn't bother checking it every time. And it matters little to me what "others" might find justified. This is a conversation between you and I and I am telling you I didn't think it was necessary. I expressed my opinion. You apparently feel you were civil. I don't. We disageee. It's simple. Instead, let's talk about that Inside Kung Fu article, the one you say talks about JHR. I just read the link you provided and I don't see "Jailhouse Rock" mentioned at all in it. I see the "Stick grappler" telling us it may be related, but the article itself doesn't mention it, let alone tell us it is related or provide any information about JHR. So when I removed it and said it doesn't even talk about JHR......I was correct. Now you've provided a link to it and it still doesn't talk about it. Maybe if we stare at it long enough....nope, still doesn't talk about JHR.


 * So let's recap: I removed an article, stating it has nothing to do with JHR. You restore it, telling me I am wrong and to go do something constructive. I read the article and it doesn't even mention JHR. It doesn't matter if Newsome is connected to JHR, the article still isn't about JHR.


 * It seems to me for you to use this article as a reference, it requires some WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Sort of a "Newsome is about JHR, this article is about Newsome, therefore this article is about JHR" process. Interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So let's recap: I removed an article, stating it has nothing to do with JHR. You restore it, telling me I am wrong and to go do something constructive. Wow, you can't let something go huh?  Or admit you were careless?  No, let's *really* recap.  You removed two sources from the article without reading them.  Now you are seizing upon the fact that the Inside Kung Fu article didn't explictly mention JHR as an excuse for your shoddy action.  Ironically, as shown by your earlier comments, this is something you could not have known, but only guessed, and like a broken clock being right twice a day, you guessed right in one case and wrongly in the other.  Unlike you, I actually read both, in one case, it was clearly relevant, in the other, not so relevant, but I gave the benefit of the doubt to those who had added the link and perhaps have a greater subject matter knowledge, and left a remark that it might need to be removed.  You also made no effort to read the Wikipedia article and did not notice several references to Douglas Century.  You also don't consider an external link to be trustworthy, so you didn't bother to even take a glance through it and notice its reference list.  But because you have a little something to grab onto to attempt to justify in some extremely weak way what you did, you are going to clutter up my talkpage with your excuses and accusing me of incivility.  You know, when I left that Inside Kung Fu reference in the article, I had a very strong suspicion you were going to come to my talk page and make excuses while oh-so-carefully avoiding mentioning that you basically acted ignorantly.  And whaddya know, I was right.   --C S (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You can complain about "ignorance" all you want. The article didn't have anything to do with JHR. So my "ignorance" was still correct. But your replacing it, even after reading it, borders on the dishonest. Yet you continue to defend your shoddy sourcing by claiming it was maybe relevant (despite not even mentioning the topic). Complain about me being wrong and not admitting it, while refusing to admit that you were wrong when you replaced a source that you read and dishonestly said it actually did address the topic. Don't worry, I won't "clutter up your talkpage" with anymore. I detest dishonesty. I had a very strong suspicion you were fabricating when you claimed the article contained information about JHR. And whaddya know, I was right. You can have the WP:LASTWORD Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture of fake food
Yes that is one of my favorite. It is incredible stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer  Waters  05:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT may once again be losing its way
Since you say you're retired from Wikipedia, I have no idea whether you'll ever see this or whether, indeed, you will care. Actually, I am pretty much retired as well, but happened to notice a discussion at WT:POINT which led me to add more clarification to that guideline. I was reverted by an editor who disagreed with my interpretation (and yours, per your previous comments on that page), who then made more changes, and now it appears the guideline is once again in danger of losing its way. I thought I'd let you know since you were involved in previous discussions about this. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
You are invited to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No thanks. --C S (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Macallan distillery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speyside (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black–Scholes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martingale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

bitcoin
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please review the history of the bitcoin article text and talk discussion of the lede. The lede should reflect the text as supported by RS citations. Please review WP:BRD the currency statement was reverted, and the next step is the ongoing discussion. Please participate in the discussion and state your views but do not edit war, which can result in you being blocked. The current text of the article, reflecting properly cited WP:RS references, does not declare bitcoin to be a currency. Please reflect. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk  19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why am I not surprised by this? I made no personal attacks.  If you disagree, feel free to get a third-party opinion.  Incidentally, choosing Wired over the Wall Street Journal as a reliable source is silly.  --C S (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, everyone on the discussion page has disagreed with you. I used this burgeoning consensus as the basis for my edit, and I even made some comments there before making the change.  I made even yet another comment there right now.  As far as I can see, you have not bothered engaging in discussion with me or respecting the current consensus before reverting me.   Please understand you are in the minority.  Get agreement from somebody else before continually reverting.  --C S (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not engage in personal attacks on other editors. Please review the extensive history of the article, the text, the sources, the text of the lede, and WP policy including WP:LEAD. Per BRD there must be acknowledged consensus before a reinsertion such as yours. It is not up to you to claim that opinion supports your edit war.  In the course of your review of the history of the article and talk, please note my cooperation on that text including earlier today by my incorporation of the initial claims of "peer-to-peer payment system" per the bitcoin origination document.  Please consider these remarks and review the various references I have provided.  If you continue to violate WP policy you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.   SPECIFICO  talk  21:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to wrap this up: Please undo the remainder of your edits and changes of citation and engage in talk. Note that I was not the editor who cited the Wired article as you seem to suggest. That appears to have been added here. If you are interested in improving this topic, there is much room for improvement in the description of the computational and transactional aspects of bitcoin. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk  22:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

bitcoin EW
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have already done 3 reverts. Please take a break. SPECIFICO talk  21:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Specifico, I have done *one* revert. Not three.  Please stop harassing me with meritless accusations of edit-warring.  You aren't fooling anyone here with your actions.  --C S (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The warning is a courtesy. I am disappointed that you appear not to have reviewed the WP policies to which I referred you.  Please do re-read and consider my messages to you and the history of the bitcoin article.  Your next revert will be your fourth.   SPECIFICO  talk  02:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand what a revert is or how to count them. Stop leaving me messages here, as I take them to be harassment.  I've already made a notice of your actions on ANI (I will post a link to it for you on your talk page).  --C S (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Thistlethwaite unknot.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thistlethwaite unknot.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Bring radical. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you are given a good deal of freedom in what you write. ï¿½ (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a joke edit. --C S (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Money laundering
Point taken: perhaps it's the $1.9 billion fines that accompany money laundering that institutions inside the financial system actually don't like. Fleetham (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Your recent editing history at Bitcoin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Thomas.W  talk to me  17:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL. I was just going to post one of these on your talk page too.  Note that you will always be one revert ahead of me, having started this.  --C S (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope. You're one ahead of me since you started by undoing another user's (Fleetham's I believe) edit. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". Which means you've made three reverts while I have only made two. Thomas.W   talk to me  17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Eh, whatever. What I find surprising is some people have nothing better to do than get involved in a dispute that they have no knowledge of just for the sake of being in a dispute.  --C S (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not in it for the sake of being in a dispute, I never am. I'm in it to make sure that everything is done the proper way, that's why I reverted Fleetham's massive undiscussed edit yesterday, an edit that removed 25% of the article, and told him to discuss things on the talk page first, and get a clear consensus for it. Just like you should for your removal, because as it is there is no consensus for it. So I suggest you self-revert until there is a consensus. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think you followed the discussion or article at all, otherwise you'd know it's basically Fleetham's opinion against several others that have voiced their opinions on this (not just Canton but others in the past). That's the problem with just jumping into something based on something superficial like "oh you removed a WSJ source".  --C S (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm deliberately trying to stay out of the discussion, but that doesn't stop me from disliking the way things are currently being done on the Bitcoin article, with what seems like deliberate attempts to change the entire article into something it wasn't a short while ago. Possibly because of financial interests in it, one way or another. But things should be done according to the rules, and that goes for both sides. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Fry (businessman)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on John Fry (businessman) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Fry (businessman)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on John Fry (businessman) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Math Question/Verification for the On-Base Slugging (OPS) page
Hello. I'm sure you are busy, but I came across the on-base plus slugging page and was confused by the following statement (which I ended up deleting in an edit):


 * ''Furthermore, despite being based on two already well-established stats and thus easy to calculate, the calculation does not follow mathematical rules of addition with fractions; i.e., the denominator for on-base percentage is plate appearances while the denominator for slugging percentage is at bats.

'' Unless I'm making some careless error, the equations for OPS given earlier in the passage do follow the rules of addition for fractions, as a common denominator is found before adding the two.

Anyways, I was surprised the statement in question had remained unaltered since 2013, but I saw your post on the talk page (talk:on-base plus slugging) which confirmed my opinion that the quotation above needed to be removed. (Sorry, I don't know how to link directly to your post.)

However, because no one else has "caught" the error for 3 years, I'm second-guessing myself and thought I'd check with you since you worked on the page at one time.

I apologize if my asking or posting this here is improper protocol. While I'm not new to Wikipedia, I am a novice on proper etiquette when posting to people's pages. I completely understand if you're too busy to deal with such a minor thing, but I just thought I'd ask in the interest of posting correct info on WP.

I apologize if I'm wasting your time or for any faux pas I've probably made as far as how these posts are supposed to be formatted. Thanks Bkmays (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey,
we need to catch up sometime soon. Jbaber (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

skein relation
hi. not sure of the etiquette here but i see you've edited the page for skein relation in the past, and seem to know what you're doing when it comes to wikipedia. there's been a rather suspect edit to this page around a year ago - i've flagged it in the talk but nobody seems to have noticed. i think there's a fairly good case for reverting this, but i don't know how to do this or what the protocols are... any thoughts?

cheers, n.

82.23.238.151 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

John Scarne was as claimed.
Scarne was often proclaimed by experts, magicians and editors of the time as the greatest card manipulator of all time. John Northern Hilliard Greater Magic, Carl Waring Jones, Minneapolis, 1947, eighth revised edition, 1947. p 574 Miistermagico (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Thistlethwaite unknot.png


The file File:Thistlethwaite unknot.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused. Superseded by File:Thistlethwaite unknot.svg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 14:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Thistlethwaite unknot.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thistlethwaite unknot.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 13:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)