User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 13

User categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedians by Erdős number page. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians by Erdös number for instructions. --Cooksey 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's really. really lame. You do realise that the category system is effectively broken, from the point of view of this application. Think about it - I provided the reason my Erdos number is at most four, which is interesting. You want me to add myself to a category, where this information can't be found. I dislike the use of categories to replace other ways of doing the same thing, when categories are worse in ways that ought to be obvious to the meanest intelligence. Charles Matthews 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

...What does the go thing mean? You actually played a go match against Erdos??? :o -- NIC1138 17:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Twice. Charles Matthews 17:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

TeX on Envelope theorem
I was wondering if you knew how to get TeX to properly represend a case where a funcion is to be evaluated at some value for one of its parameters. I've used: " \frac{\partial f(x^*, a)}{ \partial a} \Bigg|_{x^* = x(a)} " to get $$\frac{\partial f(x^*, a)}{ \partial a} \Bigg|_{x^* = x(a)}$$, but I don't like "\Bigg". is there a better way to do this? (ps feel free to fix that article up if you don't like it in any way, thanks) Smmurphy(Talk) 09:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm no TeXpert - you could try User:Dysprosia. Charles Matthews 10:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the problem with \Bigg is, but you could also write " \left. \frac{\partial f(x^*, a)}{\partial a} \right|_{x^* = x(a)} " to get $$\left. \frac{\partial f(x^*, a)}{\partial a} \right|_{x^* = x(a)}$$ -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was just worried about using \Bigg, which seems to be awkward and uniformative to someone looking at the TeX markup. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:Anglosphere
Strange there is no discussion of the history points. For example, the English hace arguably been ruled by no one else but foreigners since 1066!

Charles Matthews 07:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There is the perspective that pre 1006 England was Anglo-Saxon and that "The English" defines the derivative of a merged Anglo-Norman nation. Dainamo 01:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, OK, the article has developed quite a way since I wrote that. Charles Matthews 09:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Appreciated, but the original point you made above is an interesting side comment, separate to the subsequent development of the article that has until now remained unchallenged. You would not be the first to make the remark, and I think the definition of what defines "the English" is an intriguing one and, for example, affects whether we perceive past royalty as English or  Welsh (Tudor), Stuart (Scots), German (Hanover to Windsor) etc.  Dainamo 12:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually (and I'm not going to write about this in the Anglosphere article) the idea of an English 'ethnicity' seems to have been creeping up on us Brits for a few decades; and doesn't make much historical sense. When Norman Davies wrote about Edouard I people didn't really connect to that; but he ruled a large empire with five legal systems and administered in French. What's English comes and goes. Charles Matthews 12:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Your RfAr statement on Carl Hewitt
You express uncertainty in your statement about whether User:CarlHewitt is who he says he is. I've been in email correspondence with him, and have asked his former PhD student, Will Clinger, whom I have had contact with independently, that the email address he used is indeed one he has used in the past. I trust that this constitutes confirmation. --- Charles Stewart 15:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I expressed a measure of due caution about personation. I wasn't particularly in doubt. Charles Matthews 16:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetry
I see you did some edits to the article on Christopher Ricks after mine (quite reasonable ones). I see also from your home-page that you have some interest in poetry.

I am interested that there is not more poetry included verbatim on Wikipedia (or related sites). Presumably poems become public domain 70 years after the death of the poet, which puts a lot (most) poetry in the public domain. Presumably it can also be cut and paste from sites that have it electronically already (assuming in the public domain of course)? Is there a consensus view on any of this? Pointers appreciated. RandomProcess 18:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Original texts are posted on WikiSource, our sister project. Charles Matthews 18:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Acharya S
Thank you for bringing a breath of sanity back to this article! Even if we do appear to have confliciting opinions on whether or not the article should be deleted (or I may be assuming to much - you haven't voted yet). Assuming it isn't deleted, would it be technically feasible/within Wikipedia policy to ban anon's from editing the article and the talk page? That would cut down on a lot of the bickering, I think. crazyeddie 19:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I look at it this way: OK, now we really only have edit warring going on over the hostile criticism. That's fair enough - as long as NPOV is observed, that section could look various ways. I could save myself trouble by suggesting the page be deleted, but then there will be another part of this 'copycat Jesus' controversy somewhere else on the site. Charles Matthews 20:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I considered asking for deletion some months back, decided it was a bad idea. What do you think about the anon-blocking idea? I've never heard of it being done (and I'm not even sure if it's possible for admin to do). But I'm getting really tired of endless series of screeds written by anons. If nothing else, I'd like to at least know which POV the screed is coming from - there have been times when it was difficult to tell. It wouldn't stop any one from editing - they could just go ahead and get a log in. But I suppose it could raise a stink - being "unwiki" and all that. So I thought I'd ask an older and wiser head... crazyeddie 20:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I love your lists!...
...but eventually you have to fish or cut bait. Can you either remove your category lines User:Charles Matthews/Special functions & eponyms or commit them to the shared area? I know that they are modular, but it looks out-of-place when browsing the categories. -- Fplay 02:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Charles Matthews 08:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Then the lead section should also avoid the Monday Club's description of itself as having that alone is unbalanced and POV. Homey 15:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We can discuss that, though I don't actually agree. It is not POV to have self-definitions first. It might be possible to place the Monday Club more accurately, with respect to the Powellites, for example. Charles Matthews 15:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (Japan)
Please revisit the discussion. This was no merge request: the article has no content worthy of merging. Perhaps you misread a respondant's suggestion as part of the nomination? Durova 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Taxwoman, RachelBrown, Poetlister etc.
I hear you have an element of involvement with one or more of these people. What is your take on the current situation regards these accounts? I'm very interested in getting to the bottom of this. Dan100 (Talk) 20:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Only in the sense that I greeted User:Poetlister, in the early days. If there are different people behind the accounts in question - and I don't think that's ruled out - then there has certainly been some collusion over editing. That's no crime, though. I don't really know what the next step forward should be. It might be to ask, straight out but offline from WP, whether the occasion(s) cited as edits from a common IP were really people in the same room. I know User:Poetlister has some gripes about admin handling of the more wide-ranging dispute of which this is a part. This is not, however, really any sort of mitigating circumstance. There needs, probably, to be some sort of two-step process: (a) find the facts, and (b) if rules were broken, broker some sort of resolution. Charles Matthews 21:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

TeX reference in Typesetting acticle
Charles, are you able to shed some light on who, exactly, considers TeX to have set high standards for typesetting mathematics? I don't doubt the notion, but TeX is not my specialty (I'm a typographer and type face designer), and I'm trying to nail this attribution. Thanx for your input. &mdash;Arbo 19:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetlister
Can you unblock Poetlister? See her talk page and my response. -- Bonaparte  talk  13:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You should read what I have written on User talk:Poetlister. Charles Matthews 13:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Measuring contributions in various fields
Dear Charles,

how are you? Happy end of the year. Someone told me about a discussion concerning the page about me - a discussion started by Tweet Tweet. Let me tell you a couple of candid words.

First of all, I have no interest for the page to survive or be deleted. I don't care much.

Second of all, the deletion process was started by the anonymous user "Tweet Tweet" whose all contributions to Wikipedia can be summarized as an attempt to fight with me (his first edit) and an attempt to delete any criticism of loop quantum gravity, which he or she essentially succeeded with. I have no idea about his or her identity, but it is probably a student of one of our loop quantum gravity colleagues. For me, these LQG issues are marginal; it is just one topic among hundreds.

Third of all, it is indeed not good to fail to have expert publications for 18 months - and normally I am also a person who would publish 4 times a year. Sciencewise, it was just an unprecedently difficult period for me. April - October 2004 was spent with huge bureaucracy about getting the visa, new housing, permits, huge amount of grant applications, various combinations of taxes, immigration papers etc. and so forth. It was enough to be exhausted. Once I started to teach in September, the political affairs known as the Summers controversy started to annoy Harvard (actually it started with me), and rightwingers like me were the real target of the attacks. It just turned me off and convinced me to do many more things "outside" - and definitely cancel any plans about continuing this kind of work in a similar political environment for extended periods of time. When the Summers hysteria started with himself, I had a prepared letter of resignation to be sent immediately when they would fire him or something like that. It did not happen but the politically correct police crippled freedom of speech - and Summers's influence - in such a dramatic way that the situation may be even worse than if he resigned.

Next, string theory is not in the most interesting period right now - or in the last 3 years.

We are just finishing a paper (well, it's kind of finished) about a general principle that the gravity is the weakest force etc. - with Nima Arkani-Hamed, Cumrun Vafa, and Alberto Nicolis. It's fun. I am working on many other projects whose results I only want to announce if they're interesting. One of my secret projects it an attempt to prove the Riemann Hypothesis from a well-established fact in string theory.

Fourth of all, scholar.google.com is a very good source of information about articles, authors (put the first name and the last name in the quotation marks), and citations in all fields. Of course, in our field, what we usually count is the total number of citations. I have about 1050. Witten has about 60000+, Peter Woit has 219, and so forth. (PW has not written a real paper for 20 years or so.) The young generation today has a very difficult life in science today - because of so many things including the cancellation of the SSC - which holds especially for the grad students.

As you have hopefully learned already, I am not "the" leader of theoretical physics right now, although many older well-known colleagues still tend to believe - for whatever reasons - that it may become my fate. On the other hand, quite honestly and modestly, it is unlikely that there exists another regular theoretical physics Wikipedia editor whose overall scientific contributions exceed mine. (And I am sure that you know who among Tweet Tweet and me knows physics better.) The small amount of my very successful young colleagues focus on their careers - which never meant anything for me. At this very moment, I just feel that doing things like educating a slightly broader scientific public is more important than trying to get new results although it looks rather difficult. But of course I follow every direction that's happening, doing my research, and hope that we will enter a more interesting era soon.

All the best LM, --Lumidek 16:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cubing the cube
Hi, I enjoyed reading the article. Do you have some references that can be added to the page for interested readers? Thanks! Shawnc 04:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an online chronology by David Singmaster that says the negative result is due to Sarvadaman Chowla in 1939. Apparently Martin Gardner wrote this up, later. Charles Matthews 08:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Design Methods
Thanks Charles for your extensive editing and reordering of design methods. We met and many of your ideas and comments we discussed - so we are in alignment in sevreral of the changes. However, we did some reordering and edited some of the changes to come closer to our intention to have a good overview of design methods in the right order. Also, the article is at 35K, which was one of our goals. Thank you for your help, we do appreciate it.


 * A few things. Please use edit summaries to document changes. I am now faced with about 30 changes to go through, to understand what exactly you have done. Please respect the house style on linking. The initial article was hugely overlined. Your changes have replaced overlinking in parts where I took time and trouble to remove it. See Build the web, Manual of Style (links), Only make links that are relevant to the context for guidance on linking (which has to be considered a trade-off of sorts). These are therefore negatives in integrating this interesting article into Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 16:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Charles for your comments and we appreciate your interest in helping us. We respected most of your linking deletions and will read more about Wikistyle. Our goal is to be a positive addition to Wiki, so please have patience. (Design Methods 16:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

On Wikipedia as a whole: in a nutshell the technology is simple, but the social complexity is high (and sustains the project). That at least is a clue; and a belated welcome. The length of articles is not rigidly constrained. A good model is a central survey with specialised articles hanging off it. Charles Matthews 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ford Prefect / Name at birth
Sorry, fella. The link was "dead" when I first rv'd it. IainP (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Griffiths
I'm pleased that my article on Harris has attracted some attention, and flattered that you want me to write one on his advisor now...however, Griffiths is now off at IAS while Harris is now the algebraic geometer at Harvard, and my experience is limited to contact with the latter. So as not to disappoint my fans I am willing to write a stub on Griffiths but there's little I can do. I figured leaving the dead link was enough of a suggestion for someone who knows more about him. Ryan Reich 21:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Come now, you can ask Joe Harris to help on this, surely. Actually a point that interests me is how Griffiths got into algebraic geometry. I have a strong impression that his background was in analysis. In fact he started out on deformation of the Maurer-Cartan equations? When I was where you are now, a little while ago it has to be said, Griffiths was lecturing on the Cartan-Kähler theorem area. So there has to be some more to this than the Hodge conjecture, on which he was said to have set his heart. (Not that we can put gossip in the article, perish the thought.) Charles Matthews 22:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll ask Harris when I get back from vacation (he can contribute to his own article, too!). Until then we have the stub (which is not going on my list of articles I'm proud of, yet). Ryan Reich 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

question about blocks
16:59, 6 January 2006 Charles Matthews unblocked User:Rpsugar (block interfering with another user)

I'm a new administrator. How can a block of one user interfere with another user? Thanks! --JWSchmidt 02:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Mystery, actually. There was some fallout through the autoblocker for another admin, who was emailing me about it offline. So I lifted the block - which didn't immediately clear the problem. Strange things tend to happen when the servers are overloaded (but that might not be it, either). Charles Matthews 08:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Margret Biggs
Since you “walked off” with a large chunk of my work, under your editorial, I have cited it myself at “School story” and reverted it at “Margret Biggs”! Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, you are surely not saying that the general-comment piece belonged at Margaret Biggs. I would never have seen in, if in creating school story I hadn't searched the whole site for 'school stories'. And I hope you're not claiming ownership. There is a good audit trail, since my edit comments showed where it was going, and where it came from as an import. What more do you want? Pieces here are unsigned. Charles Matthews 14:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"The Body of Her Work Within the Genre" now belongs at Margaret Biggs, yes. I "created" it, just as you "ceated" the smaller part of school story. As I have "created" the larger part of school story, I quite like having my name in the "History" section. And I hope you're not claiming ownership. There is a good audit trail, now. P.S. I think "school story Genre" would be a better title. Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 14:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The text in question is a copy of with minor paraphrasing, so I cut it from both articles. Gdr 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See I told you it is a good audit trail. I could quibble and dispute that 1. was the prime source, (I'd never visited that page before the link was posted). 2. It was "with minor paraphrasing", but whatever - at least I did not simply cut 'n' paste without any changesas per Charles Matthews at school story... Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 19:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Really, copyright violation is a serious matter of breaking of policy, as you should note well. It says that below the edit box. You won't find anything in policy against moving content from page to page. Charles Matthews 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that almost all of User:Skull 'n' Femurs's contributions are by cut-and-paste from the web. Kind of ironic, in light of his/her insistence on getting credit. Gdr 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Go opening theory
Rewritten a bit. Please proof for BBC English. -Ste|vertigo 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox
Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.
 * User arbcom nom

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Clockwork clowns
Thanks for correcting my (worse than normal even) spelling at Noddy. But there's one thing I'd like to revisit... the key of the clockwork clowns. It's not fixed into their backs, and this is important as there's a repeated plot device of the clowns losing or pretending to lose their keys. The clockwork toys on which these characters are based, similarly, don't typically have a fixed key, but rather a keyhole into which the key (or a similar key, particularly of the same type of toy and/or manufacturer) can be inserted. Andrewa 11:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Edits!
Thank-you for giving my article, Intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy, some new paragraphing and categorisation. I was wondering how the heck to do that. . . --Robert Tarzwell 18:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Léon Carambât
Oh fantastic - I was googling everything known to mankind as you made the edit - where did you find him? Giano | talk 22:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In a book! Conover on Rudge and Pound, happened to be six inches away. Charles Matthews 22:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I returned it to the library last week, but I only skimmed it - found it quite hard work to be honest! So there is a salutory lesson for me. Giano | talk 22:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thanks again for the sysop nomination. I've just been promoted. -- Fropuff 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Charles Matthews 09:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A Cherryh fan too?
Always good to find another. I must confess to having slipped at reading fiction recently, having been reading so many weighty bricks of paper for Wikipedia ... —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pappus
Shouldn't the Pappus of Alexandria article link only once to Porism? &rarr; (AllanBz &#9997;) 06:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe. It's not a cast-iron rule, more a question of giving the reader the right prompts. Charles Matthews 07:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Roderick MacFarquhar
I've just written an article on this academic sinologist (and former Labour MP). In a routine check on 'Whatlinkshere' your page User:Charles Matthews/Huntington came up. I just thought I should drop you a note, as my main interest is his politics, but you may know more especially about his post-Westminster career. David | Talk 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That list was compiled from names mentioned in Samuel Huntington's book The Clash of Civilizations. Which I then gave to Oxfam (my way of clearing shelf space is to reduce books to lists of links here). You can probably find a copy if you want to see if it says anything illuminating. Charles Matthews 15:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidacy
Hello Charles. It looks as though you will become eligible to be selected for the arbcom. Should you ever actually sit on that committee, I urge you to use what influence you have to cut down on the amount of verbiage bloating the arbitration process. I believe that encouraging everyone involved to get to the point would be the best way to make arbitration more effective. Thanks for all your excellent work & best regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 15:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do. Charles Matthews 15:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
My condolences Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're quite right too kind. Charles Matthews 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to Charles with the support he got from the Wikipedia community, and congratulations to the Wikipedia community with having what I expect to be an excellent Arbitration Committee. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What an exciting run, you are a great addition to the committee! -- M P er el ( talk 03:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup! Paul August &#9742; 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Great news for free and fair speech and the equitable dissemination of knowledge! - keep up the good work. Ben Spinozoan 13:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, probably you should automatically assume some congratulations from everybody that voted for you anyway, but in case this is not the right thing to do, just accept them from me personally :-) --BACbKA 19:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Relation(mathematics)
are you the mediator? or does mediation involve the appearance of an individual designated mediator? Pardon my ignorance; I'm new... Randall Holmes 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not really mediating there. Mediation is where some third party tries to clarofy the situation in offline discussions. Charles Matthews 21:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring
Since this was one of the issues during the election, I would like to hear the opinion of the new arbiters regarding wheel warring, as discussed in this ArbCom case, this quote by Jimbo, community opininon on the subject (summarized in the Signpost) and the draft Admin Code of Conduct. Please do not take this as an attack or request-for-censure of the people involved in that case I mentioned, but rather a question on the general principle whether something can be done about the increasingly prevalent wheel wars. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I note your concern. I'll treat any case that comes up on its merits. ArbCom measures are in any case slow-acting. Charles Matthews 11:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

13 Chestertonian words vs. 21
Hi, Charles Matthews,

The 13 and 21 words in question are

Typically, Chesterton here combined wit and self-deprecating humor with a serious point (human sinfulness as the major problem of the world). (21)

Typically, Chesterton here combined wit with a serious point (human sinfulness) and self-deprecation. (13)

You asked why use 21 words when 13 will do. I guess my answer, though I don't feel horribly strongly about it, is that the 13 don't say the same thing as the 21, and I like what the 21 say better. The 13-wd version sounds to me like C was into putting himself down. I don't think self-deprecation was that prominent in his character or his writings, though it is very typical of him to enjoy making a joke at his own expense. That is why I preferred "self-deprecating humor" over "self-deprecation". If expressed that way it fits next to "wit" and moving it there puts more emphasis on the "serious point", which also seemed good.

"Human sinfulness" alone felt rather cryptic in this context, (my wife complains strongly when I just drop unexpected and unexplained terms into a discussion like that), and the explanation "as the major problem of the world" felt like a reasonable amount of explanation.

If you leave out the explanatory words "as the major problem of the world" you would still have only 14 words, fwtw. I'd prefer that to a complete revert. Or one could reword the explanation, perhaps to "as the world's major problem", saving two whole words :-) . But I'll leave it up to you.

Which is now going on 300 words expended on deciding whether to use 13 words or 21!

--Lavintzin 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How many words was the original letter? Under ten, anyway. Why assume that anyone who might like Chesterton's wit needs a verbose explanation? Saying both 'wit' and 'humor' is excessive, too. Believe me, our articles are better-written when they are crisper. Charles Matthews 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Wit' and 'humor' are quite different, in my mind, and this essay/letter embodies both. Yes, I believe your stricture is generally true.


 * I'd still prefer "wit and self-deprecating humor" to "wit … and self-deprecation". --Lavintzin 22:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't. The self-deprecation is as serious (not humorous) as the wit is apt. Don't demean it by calling it humour - I think that misses some of the point. Put it this way - if this is taken as all very knowing and folksy (for example if this was Mark Twain talking) - it loses half the point. Charles Matthews 23:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I know he was serious about it. That doesn't contradict it being humourous (as well as good-humoured). You are certainly right that it is not Mark Twainish and would lose more than half the point if it were. In any case I still prefer the other way of saying it: maybe it's an American/British thing that the connotations of "self-deprecation" by itself are worse for us. For me anyway.


 * btw, if we would consistently spell it humor instead of humour, think how many letters we would save! --Lavintzin 02:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Question
Based on this picture - has anyone ever told you that you bear an uncanny resemblance to John Malkovich (if he had a beard and glasses). Raul654 06:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And hair on his head? No, not been put to me before. Charles Matthews 08:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Charles is definitely better looking. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Never fancied Being John Malkovich. And his edit count ... pah. Charles Matthews 16:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Question
Sorry if I appear rude ...

But I am intrigued about your lists and wonder where you get them from.

For example: what is the source of pages such as /Abrams - /Adair - /Aldington - /Allen --etcetera

Just now I was doing some research on Donald Kuspit, and your lists have him, under Calo.

Looking forward to your reply. --Jahsonic 21:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind disclosing the sources. For example Abrams is from two major books by M. H. Abrams on Romanticism. The Calo book is (was - I no longer have it) on Bernard Berenson. And so on. There is no one theme. Charles Matthews 22:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost interview
Hello,. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.


 * 1) How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?


 * Gratified with the degree of support I had. Settling into the ArbCom is another matter; any case accepted is a responsibility.


 * 1) What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?


 * I was downbeat about it when the initial questions were posted. I disliked some of the lines of questioning, particularly the interrogations about personal beliefs, and that probably showed. There was a rush of last-minute candidacies, which did little good and less harm. Once the voting started it seemed quite orderly, and not such a bad system.


 * 1) What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?


 * Many thanks for the kind words which were said. Apart from a few grudges, I had some opposition on 'tone'. To those who held the way I express myself against me - look, I don't do bland, I do forthright.


 * 1) What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?


 * User:Filiocht is the one I know best - we worked together on The Cantos, a proof-of-concept project for 'Wikipedia can do the humanities'. It looks like solid, bright, committed Wikipedians all the way down, to me.


 * 1) What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?


 * Yeah. I've talked to James at meet-ups, Fred is the guy who keeps the ArbCom going forward when it would otherwise stall. Jayjg I know only from the wiki-en mailing list, but it already seems we agree on a few ArbCom technical things.


 * 1) After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?


 * Help. (There is a backlog of cases, to which we opt in rather than out.) Like they say, the first task is to get control of your in-tray. There is an impossible amount of reading-into-the-job to do, so I've looked round for things where I can contribute.


 * 1) What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?


 * Strengths: most people recognise that it is needed, and that its decisions deserve respect. Plus Jimbo's support for getting to the issues that really affect the project. Weaknesses: still finding its way, burns out people with huge numbers of diffs.


 * 1) If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?


 * Hah - a little early to say. When people are told '500 words', don't allow them 850. Get WP:RFAR reformatted somehow. Better navigation of the pages for any one case. These kinds of things are what you notice in the first 48 hours.


 * 1) What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?


 * Well, it looks like it could be a really good idea: someone does the paper-shuffling offstage, so that the Arbitrators can tug their metaphorical beards and concentrate on dispensing wisdom. Most people would favour something to get cases through the system quicker, even of the 'heart sinks' type. We'll have to see how the innovation works out. It's not quite in the wiki way, in a sense.


 * 1) Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?


 * I want to serve out my three years. WP in 2009 is going to be much closer to maturity. How we get there matters, and an ArbCom seat is, at the least, very informative about the worst that gives. Three years of ruling on edit wars is probably enough for anyone, but let's see what the future holds.


 * 1) If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?


 * Keep up the copy edits: we'll soon have 1000000 articles, and they need TLC.


 * 1) Is there anything else you would like to mention?


 * A big shout to all the closet intellectuals out there. You are not alone.

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 15:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A fundamental vectorial thanks ...
... for merging fundamental theorem of vector analysis and Helmholtz decomposition. Long overdue and I like how the merged article looks like. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ivan Matveevich Vinogradov
I've just inserted a reference there, summarising the statements by Novikov on the antisemitism aspect. BTW, you're welcome to change the style of references from inline to whatever format you prefer (Harvard, e.g.) --- it's generally a prerogative of the first reference adding editor, but I hereby yield this power to you :-) I've heard a lot of stories going MUCH farther than Novikov, from Vinogradov's direct and indirect victims, but, unfortunately, this would be original research to cite these, so I'll keep that to myself. If you could kindly polish my English there, it would be great. A good citing from the Vershik's article in the Math. Intelligencer is lacking; do you have them accessible in a nearby library? BTW, the user reverting your attempt to smoothen the issue seems to be a newcomer, no other edits except for the reverts. --BACbKA 22:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to ask somebody on the IRC to help, let's refrain from editing this article ourselves for a short while so as not to get close to the 3RR :-) --BACbKA 22:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, apparently a newcomer. Unfortunately I don't have easy access to an academic library. Some research at Google gives some clues (Vinogradov and Pontryagin versus Kolmogorov seems to be a big story). There is some web article by Vitushkin, describing being interviewed by IMV with Nikolskii there- unfortunately it is a paying download, and I get only a few words at a time (it seems that IMV's attitude changed when Kronrod was mentioned). It would be good to have better biographies for the major mathematicians, anyway. It is 25 years since I really used my Russian. Charles Matthews 22:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. I'll try to find that MI article myself, then, although this will take quite some time. As for the newbie, I've left an explanatory notice at User talk:McWiki22, but there's also a (sockpuppet?) IP keeping with the same reverts and also refusing to use the talk page Special:Contributions/130.113.105.43. Since it's a newbie, I am not going to call for a formal checkuser run, as that implies a sort of a malicious sockpuppet activity; here I suspect there is no malice at all. I've also posted a request for help at Talk:Anti-Semitism. I don't have any problem with the newbie being the "king of the hill" at the moment, even after their blatant removal of a pretty NPOV-framed (according to S.P.Novikov...) reference addition, for a simple reason --- I'm off to sleep :-) Good night. --BACbKA 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Alfred Kreymborg
I was recently researching my great uncle, Alfred Kreymborg, and noticed that you had done a great deal of the initial work on a Wikipedia page for him. At first I was interested in finding out why someone else might be interested in him, and I notice that you've got an interest in many early twentieth-century poets. That leaves me with nothing more to say than: Thank you for your work. XSG 7:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. There is probably more, about his early life. I read somewhere about him publishing E. A. Robinson, but haven't found the reference a second time. Charles Matthews 10:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's much more. Troubadour (his 1926 autobiography) covers much of it.  And, of course, there are the family stories...  I was never fortunate enough to meet him, however my father is the one who has collected much of the memorabilia.  If there is anything you wanted to know, I could certainly put you in touch.  Being a relatively minor player in both the world of poetry and the world of chess, however, I don't know if it's so warranted... XSG 18:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The criteria are more to do with being able to check facts, than an abstract scale indicating what we should include. By all means edit in things from Troubadour yourself, for examples a few quotes. For someone like him, contacts in the world of the arts are interesting, just as a way of documenting the whole 'bohemian' thing. Charles Matthews 19:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Proposed decision
I hope you read the discussion page there, and my defense against false and improper claims by the lead administrator, Fred Bauder, in the case. The "libertarian" and "tendentious original research" thing is a fabrication. Thanks. RJII 14:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of comments there on the page. I looked at the deleted 'New Deal' article. The other thing I will add: if you are put on 'Probation', and if you are banned for so-called 'tendentious editing', then if you consider that was unjustly applied to you I'll take up the matter. Charles Matthews 15:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, you may want to check out the Workshop page. I didn't know it existed until today. I put my statements there. []. Thanks. RJII 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

helzagood
what do you mean? I put articles that according to the rules aren't worthy of being articles, up for deletion by vote, so whats the problem? Or is it just the case that in reality, only those who have used wikipedia for an extended period of time have any voice?Helzagood 18:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For the Dalin article, we have a whole article about one of his books. You write 'nn', it just shows you have no idea what the policy is. You have not a scrap of agreement on that one. Charles Matthews 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because I am in the minority, it does not mean I am wrong. American's have voted (in majority) for Bush, does that make them right? I have every idea what the policy is, it just baffles me that someone who has authored a few books should have a detailed article, when articles about far more notable authors, researchers and scientists are deleted. I suspect the main reason is that this author happens to be based in the states. Helzagood 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You should look at Notability. There you can see that notability, as such, is not a criterion for deletion, and that there is no general agreement on what 'notability' consists of, for our purposes. There is no basis for making AfD proposals as 'nn': it's just a bad, lazy habit. I started the article on Dalin. It had nothing to do with his being American. The actual reason was that someone was citing him in reference to Hilaire Belloc's views of the Jews. He was of interest to me, therefore, as a Jewish apologist for that kind of Catholic point of view. It turned out that this wasn't isolated, as you can see from the list of books.


 * By the way, the argument when articles about far more notable authors, researchers and scientists are deleted is completely unacceptable. Charles Matthews 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mortier
I hope you didn't base your Academic section in Toque on my link in mortar board: I never heard of it being used in French education (it may, possibly imitating the US, but not necessarily under either that name or mortier), more likely seems the French judiciary, which kept gowns too Fastifex 14:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That was added 6 January by User:Amherst5282, not by me. Charles Matthews 14:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Schon/Schön
Well, all the books in my university library that I've ever read bear the Germanic spelling (see ). But on the move, you're dead right - i did just copy and paste, forgetting about the move function. I just realised this in another page move I 've just done, where i reverted the redirection midway and then went ahead with the move - is this what i should now do, or just try to remember for the future? Thanks. Cormaggio @ 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a fix: How to rename (move) a page, near bottom, available to admins. I have to admit I have always been a bit daunted by it. If you are on good terms with an admin a bit more techie than I am, it would be an idea to ask there. Charles Matthews 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll have a look at that now (I was just in the middle of what i had proposed but said I'd check here first - good job!) I have to apologise for that link I gave you above - I had done a search on Schon/Schön in my university library and copied the url here, which didn't work, so I went and copied in the same link you had sent me, without knowing (ie. without having checked it). I suppose the page confirms both spellings, saying that Schön is correct but that Schon is less problematic for search engines; however, I googled both and Schön comes out on top. Overall, I'm going to stick with Schön, as it's the spelling he used and the one he published under. Cormaggio @ 12:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Go opening theory
I have added an "External links" section to the Go opening theory article, but I was wondering whether you knew any other really worthwhile links to put in that section, so if you have time, please have a look.

Thanks ACH 10:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hah! Well, I have written a few myself. I suppose a point is that the Gobase articles need a registration. I'll see whether the MindZine versions are still there. Charles Matthews 10:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, . Charles Matthews 10:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, interesting series of articles - I'll read it when I have time. I'll add the link you suggested, too. Thanks again, ACH 11:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Poetry project
I see the WikiProject Poetry has recently been listed as inactive, yet there seems to be a reasonable amount of essentially uncoordinated activity on poetry-related articles. Would you consider joining the project? Some well-organized collaboration might help newcomers be more productive. &mdash; Stumps 13:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmm ... projects can be useful, or they can be a bit concerned with prescription and so on. I'm fairly committed at WikiProject Mathematics, where I am at least academically qualified. I have no expertise at all in poetry - it's a relatively recent interest of mine. So, I've done plenty, but in no sense from more than just digging away at things for the sake of seeing where the research leads.


 * Perhaps I'd be more excited if, for example, there was some drive to do Blake properly.


 * By the way, hi. Our paths cross frequently. I don't like to seem too busy to pass the time of day, though I do also like to pile up the edits. There is so much simple joining-the-dots to be done. Charles Matthews 13:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the way to do something like a Blake drive would be through the project? I'd be happy to contribute to that. BTW, in theory I'm also academically qualified to work on WikiProject Mathematics but after years in a software engineering career I think there's a lot of rust on the part of the brain that is supposed to remember stuff like algebraic topology. Anyhow, I'll start looking around the maths pages and see if anything comes back to me. &mdash; Stumps 13:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Stumps. Your contributions would certainly be welcome at the mathematics project. Don't worry about a little rust. My whole brain is just a pile of red dust. I once took a graduate course in algebraic topology decades ago, if I recall it had something to do with algebra and topology, I think it used little x 's and y 's to prove that a donut is a coffee cup, or something like that. And if you want to see what happens when a mathematician and a poet collude (or is that collide) check out this work in progress. Regards &mdash; Paul August &#9742; 14:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

About naming Go articles
Thanks for your contributions to Go articles. I notice that you renamed Fuseki to Whole-board opening. Can you explain it a little bit on the Talk Page? I suspect that Fuseki might be a better name. Thank you. --Neo-Jay 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it is not quite correct that fuseki means the same as 'whole-board opening'. Even in Japanese, the opening stage is called joban. Fuseki, as 'scattering of stones', is a description of the distribution of stones around the board.


 * Secondly, I suppose you can understand the reasons why Japanese-language terms have been used in the past (basically, the Western players learned from Japanese books and teachers). They are not the best to use now, since Go has become almost fully international since 1990. Older go books in English do use many Japanese words, but now we use fewer and fewer. (In fact I have written two such books myself.) It is now much better to use an English-language term, except in case there is no exact translation. Some cases are atari, ko and so on.


 * Charles Matthews 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I copy and paste your reply to the Go opening theory Talk Page. We can discuss there.  Thank you. --Neo-Jay 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading your article Go opening terminology, I am still not very clear about your position on the translation of Fuseki. It seems that you think neither "opening" nor "whole-board opening" is the proper translation. Right? I deeply appreciate it if you can leave a reply on the Talk page of Go opening terminology. Thank you so much. --Neo-Jay 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So neither "opening" nor "whole-board opening" is fuseki (This is your position, isn't it?) Then Fuseki needs to be an indepedent article, not simply a section of Whole-board go openings. It is very important to have a English article as a counterpart to Japanese Fuseki (布石) and Chinese Buju (布局). So please don't rename Fuseki to "whole-board go opening'. Please. OrZ. Thank you. Please see the Talk page of Go opening terminology. --Neo-Jay 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Charles. Sorry to bother you again. I notice that you use many names to describe one thing in the article Go opening strategy. Why not unify them to one? Please see the Talk page at Go opening strategy. Thank you so much for your patience. --Neo-Jay 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Gustav Davidson book (and Dumah)
Hi. I notice you made the last few edits to Gustav Davidson and wondered if you know anything about Dumah. That article has been invaded by fans of some non-notable heavy metal band. Do you know if the original parts of that article - the parts about the angel Dumah which were taken from the Davidson book - are salvageable? I'm trying to decide whether to simply take the cheesy band parts out or nominate the entire article for deletion. Thanks! —Wknight94 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm no angel expert. The best way would be to make that a disambiguation page. In fact I'll do that. You can nominate Dumah (band) at AfD if you feel strongly about it. Charles Matthews 12:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke's RfA
Hi Charles, thanks for your support in my (successful) RfA! –Joke 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerned Alumni of Princeton
I reverted your homogenous-->homogeneous fix to Concerned Alumni of Princeton, since the mispell is from the newpaper article being quoted. In fact, give me a sec and I'll add a [sic] to it. Jpers36 16:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, sic it is. Charles Matthews 16:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dzonatas' evidence on Theodore7's ArbCom case
User:Dzonatas has produced (mostly subjective and slanderous) evidence against me on Theodore7's ArbCom case. As it is not very relevant to this case, should I just ignore it or provide counter-evidence? Cheers, —Ruud 02:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You should probably write something there. Charles Matthews 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone listening ?
I made motions, presented evidence but it seems no on is paying any attention. Indeed, now the article had to be protected again because edit wars are continuing by other parties.  ArbCom should realize that the process is totaly broke. Protection does not cause "dialogue". Banning does not cause NPOV. I seriously suggest you come up with a different process for such articles. Some proposals were made in the ArbCom case. Sincerely, Zeq 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Anselm Page
Thanks for your editing on the references. But as his writings are significantly important, it would seem more appropriate to highlight or distinguish them from the historical references.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 12:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to annotate any reference, or order them appropriately. My main interest is in making all those old references, for example from the 1911 Britannica, more useable by adding fuller names of authors, linking author names, creating articles on the older scholars, and so on. Charles Matthews 12:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Duke Nukem 3D
Hi there. Thanks for your changes to the "Criticism" section. It was a bit wordy! I just wanted to let you know that I might re-edit again though. The original text was a bit ambivalent about whether the developers intended to cause offence, but the new edit is more unambiguous and suggests that any offence caused was accidental. I suppose it's a bit POV of me to suggest that the developers deliberately intended to cause offence, but I think it's safe to say that if one portrays women in the way that DN3D does, one should expect to cause offence. I don't think they get off the hook saying : "oh, I'm sorry, I'd no idea that could offend". Even if their PR people might be brazen enough to try this tactic. Anyway, my first thought is to revert some of the text you just changed to make things ambivalent again (not ideal - text should aim to be clear), but I'd appreciate any ideas you have. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't get me wrong, I love DN3D. I even know women who do. But it sets a very poor example.


 * I've tweaked it again. What is there now is hardly over the top. Charles Matthews 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

questions
Hello

thanks for looking at my articles and improving them. I have some questions though : you did an edit with summary :wfy, what does that mean? secondly, how come you see it so quickly when i add something?

Regards, evilbu
 * wfy means "wikify", that is, "make links". I used to find those confusing also. :) (together with "sp", "lk", etc.). About how others see what you add, I guess it is the watchlist. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I found some of your new articles just by looking back on your list of contributions. Thanks for adding to Wikipedia! Charles Matthews 09:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Awards


Regarding your comments here - I'm giving you a double-rare award. First, I am giving you your own entry in Raul's laws - one I wish desperately I had thought of.

I'm also giving you only the third-ever of Raul's Bricks of Common sense, for the same. (Calton and Radiant! having recieved the first two, respectively). Raul654 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It takes two to tango
It is clear by now that you have voted in an ArbCom case without bothering to look at the evidence.

Your only source for the decision was what Fred Bauder ( a self edmiting anti-Zionist) had to say about the case. This after he refused to recuse himself from a case he had a strong bias about.

Here is some of the evidence (which are on the case) that you choose to ignore:

User Zero was as much a party to edit wars as the people you voted to ban. Zero is continuing this edit war all over Wikipedia articles that deal with palestine/israel and the conflict:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine&diff=39192956&oldid=39156321


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine&diff=39326047&oldid=39285194


 * 21:36, January 25, 2006 UTC


 * 21:11, January 25, 2006 UTC


 * 19:33, January 24, 2006 UTC


 * 17:40, January 24, 2006 UTC


 * 10:20, January 19, 2006 UTC


 * 13:30, January 18, 2006 UTC


 * 10:02, January 18, 2006 UTC


 * 10:42, January 6, 2006 UTC


 * 08:49, January 6, 2006 UTC


 * 10:08, December 22, 2005 UTC


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=37692693&oldid=37657831


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=37623180&oldid=37621840


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622704


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622866


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622992


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37657831


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=37623180&oldid=37621840


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622704


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622866


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37622992


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=37657831

I made an suggestion to discuss this, in a a civilized way, cause i think that with Fred leading you, you have not got to the bottom of the issue. Still wiling to do that. So far there was no reply. Not very civilized.

Zeq 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We ruled on Zero's edit warring, as I recall. You'll get nowhere with accusations against Fred Bauder. I vote with him or against him, as I see fit. Charles Matthews 19:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What you did so far was to proove that you ban the Pro-Israel editors while not banning the otherside (whio was as much a party to the edit war) and more importently, as I told Fred: "I don't care if you ban me or not, what I care is that the articles get fixed"

If you would have read the talk page of "pal Exodus" you will see that not only me, but otgher editors, have tried in vain  for years  to get the article to be NPOV. The article is not close to NPOV. All attempts at dsipute resolution have failed. This is the big issue in front of you, an Issue which you did not address.

PS Maybe on Wikipedia i will not get far with accuastion about Fred. He is well respected in this comunity. But the world does not end in Wikipedia. This arbCom case is about the ability of Wikipedia to enforce it's own policies regarding Neutrality and sources in tough articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The lead arbitor is one that admited to be "Anti-Zionist", he is also "against israel right to exist" and belive that "Wikipedia is full of Zionist propeganda".

And the result ?

This arbCom case is going to end up the same if Ahminagad (Iran president) or Fred Bauder are the leading arbitors.

Why ?

Because as far as Israel - they both have the same views.

The facts of tha matter are clear along with the fact that Fred refused to recuse himself and that you voted according to his vote.

I am still intersted only in fixing the articles. The issue of who you ban who is recsed is a minor nunsanse (but one that shows that the case is not handled honestly)

I made proposdals on how to adress the articles and to that ArbCom has not even related too (excpet suprizingly enough Fred who may understand more than you what acctually takes place here) Make not mistake about it: This is not a case about banning a user with dsiruptive editing style. This is a case about Wikipedia ability to be NPOV, and that is an issue that will have ramifications outside Wikipedia (once my idenity is reveled which I plan to do as the case closes). I can imagine the headline "Wikipedia ban Eitnstein from writing about relativity and Qualtum Theory because he had an argument with Bohr on the Issue: Does God role the dice?" .

Enjoy the rest of your tenure in ArbCom.

Zeq 07:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you moderate your language, if you wish to persuade anyone. You seem to have fundamentally missed a point, which is that the ArbCom is there to rule on how people behave, not on the content of articles. Charles Matthews 07:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look at the articles instead of my behaviour. This is what the case is about.
 * If you insist looking at people behaviour look at Zero edit warring whichj continue without me. Look at edit war in 1948 which continued after I was banned from the article (until the article needed to be protected)


 * Don't confuse my behaviour with the poor state these articles are in.
 * Enjoy the rest of your tenure in ArbCom.


 * Zeq 07:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)