User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 19

Math Community
Hello,

I'm not sure this is the correct place to put this question, so if you'd like to move it somewhere else (or delete it entirely, I suppose...) feel free. On another page somewhere you discuss your math background, and someone made a comment about the state of the math community, to which you responded that you didn't want to get into it right then, but that it was a complicated subject, and the community is "run in a profligate way in terms of talent." Do you think you might elaborate? I'd be very curious to hear the opinion of someone who's spent some time in the community. I'm an undergrad at Harvard majoring in math, and I get the impression that the department, particularly in its perception and judgment of so-called 'talent', is quite different from other science departments here, even at the undergraduate level. I also feel that though the dynamic is in many ways incomparable to that of other fields, and though it can make things exciting, it does, overall, degrade the experience. Since this is something that most of my professors wouldn't discuss particularly frankly, I'd love to hear your thoughts... Thanks! Lewallen 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who didn't get tenure, I may come across as somewhat embittered or whatever. Something that I heard from David Ruelle stays with me: that there are mathematicians whose work is worth 100 times that of other mathematicians; and there are mathematicians whose work is worth 100 times those. In other words, a quite old-fashioned elitist model still obtains. Now, I wouldn't say that was wrong for the subject, but I do question to some extent the recruiting of Ph.D.'s in large numbers to the research base. I'd want to develop my argument more, around the need to have mathematical exposition and teaching more valued. Charles Matthews 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Osli73
Charles Mathews, in the Kosovo arbitration case, you voted to put Osli73 on revert parole. I wish to bring to your attention that he has been violating his parole with impunity for some time now. On February 24, this behavior was brought to the attention of the arb enforcement board (see link below), but there has not been any action or comment since. Meanwhile, edit warring is heating up again at the Srebrenica article. If those who have been put on parole can violate the limits put upon them with little or no consequence, it puts us at risk of the article falling back into a free-for-all. Could you either respond to this or contact the appropriate administrator? Thank you. Fairview360 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#.5B.5BUser:Osli73.5D.5D


 * Any admin can act; if you have problems finding one, try the clerk in the case. Charles Matthews 14:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking Issue
Hello my honorable friend, Charles Matthews. I am terribly sorry for posting on your talk page, but other respectable administrators such as User:Mangojuice have suggested for my issue to be brought to a higher authority for speculation. Please see my contributions at User:Darin Fidika and my banning issue at User talk:Darin Fidika for further analyzation.

Currently at the moment, I have been permenantly blocked by User:Nihonjoe for "continuous blatant copyrighting of images and information". Due to the fact that absolutely none of my articles that I have created within the recent past are copyright violated to any extent - it couldn't always hurt to add a source though, I am being permenantly banned simply for forgetting the copyright property of a few images that I have uploaded. If I ask for any clarification of this issue, Nihonjoe will simply bring back an old topic from a samurai incident.

Within this incident, Nihonjoe deleted well over 800 of my samurai articles truly because most of them were based off of a single source. I, along with other admins had previously said we would assist in the expansion of these articles from other sources to diminish the copyright violation, but Nihonjoe decided to delete practically everything, including over 200 various other samurai articles that I created from multiple sources such as the Life and Writings of Musashi and the Samurai Sourcebook. After this issue, Nihonjoe falsely accused me of copyrighting information when I truly wished to assist the Wikipedia foundation to the very best of my knowledge. Thus, at this point, I am being thought of as some type of vandal that continuously "steals" information and images when there is no true justification. Every administrator that has responded to my unblock requests on my talk page simply always base their conclusion upon the samurai incident while not looking into the issue at all - thus they reject my good will as nonsense. The samurai incident ended without me being blocked and for no true punishment put on me due to Nihonjoe's unjustified resolution - I probably deserved to be temporarily blocked due to my ignorance however. Whatever the case please do not harm Nihonjoe, since he was obviously uninformed of the entire situation and only acted impulsively.

Thus, I ask if you could unblock me so that I can continue to extend my eternal devotion to the Wikipedia foundation. I intend on expanding various famed novels such as Journey to the West, animes, books, and much more. I only truly wish for Wikipedia to be a place of greatness, and I will gladly extend my loyalty to this foundation at your will's descision as I have done in the past.

Thank you very much my friend for your time and consideration.

-- User:Darin Fidika (30 DEC) (EST)

RFAR
Respective of your comment on RFAR, I sent a message to arbcom-L, but I have no way of knowing if it was recieved or if the list is down (I don't get acknowledgements and I don't get copies, obviously). Thatcher131 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it is actively being discussed; but I decided not to CC the mail in which I supported the idea to you. Charles Matthews 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I certainly don't need to see your side of the conversation.  It feels a bit black hole-ish having an unmoderated e-mail address but not being on the receive list, but there's nothing so lame as sending an e-mail and then phoning the recipient, "Did you get my email?"  I'm turing into my Mom, I guess. Thatcher131 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Courtney
I've just written an article about Anthony Courtney, the Conservative MP for Harrow East who was the victim of a KGB plot in the mid-1960s, and I note you made a comment about him in a recent 'Articles for Deletion' debate. Just wanted to tip you off, partly in case you knew any other good sources for improving the article. Sam Blacketer 23:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Biography here would be a useful external link. Charles Matthews 09:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's a very useful link as it contains a lot of his early posts in the Navy which are not mentioned elsewhere. Sam Blacketer 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of objectives?
You stated: "Can I just reaffirm our basic principle: discuss the article, not the editor?" That was certainly not the line taken throughout the dispute over the Gregory Lauder-Frost article or, if you look back through the Talk Page of the Conservative Monday Club. Numerous editors have been banned. It is as clear as day to me, at least, that Ed Chilvers and Sandy Dancer are the same person and, more importantly, he came to Wikipedia with a purpose which he relentlessly pursues using ordinary edits of other articles as a 'normal' cover. Chelsea Tory 08:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What is clear as day to you is unproven speculation to everyone else. You have made a series of accusations, based apparently on nothing much. You should be aware that your status as an editor may be affected by personal attacks. As far as I'm concerned, your standing as an editor has already been affected, by your unwillingness to assume good faith in others editing here. Charles Matthews 09:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne: Arbitration needed?
Please see WP:ANI. Several of us have had problems with Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation, which is out of control. On 1 January 2007, he stopped actually creating category pages after multiple complaints, but he has not stopped adding red linked categories to articles, which is the first step in a technique for creating categories according to WP:CAT. The notice at WP:ANI has not received appropriate administrative attention. I left a request for information at WP:MEDCAB (see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-02 Pastorwayne category creation), but it looks like the Mediation Cabal may not act quickly on this request.

At this point, I am wondering if arbitration is needed. Since you are on the arbitration committee, could you please tell me whether this would be appropriate? If arbitration is not appropriate, could you instruct me on how to get some type of definitive administrative action in a relatively short time period?

(I will be asking several members of the arbitration committee just to get some type of feedback.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jc37, an administrator, has now taken a stronger action regarding this situation. Hopefully, I can discuss future concerns regarding this situation with him.  If you have additional comments for me, please contact me.  Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Giano motion
I want to report the motion in the Giano case in the Signpost, but I'm just a tad confused as to why you're "not happy with the way this was proposed", and would be grateful if you could enlighten me. Thanks, David Mestel(Talk) 18:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to go into great amounts of detail. One factor was the bringing of a contentious motion right on the cusp, while the new Arbitrators were just getting access to the closed email list. Charles Matthews 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. David Mestel(Talk) 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba arbcom case 2: banning of Andries for one year
I was very surprized that supported 's motion to have me banned from the Sathya Sai Baba related articles for one year. I thought that I had received a complete amnesty for my possibly bad edits in Sathya Sai Baba and related articles in the first arbitration case. Banned for what? I would be surprized if anybody can find just one single edit that seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first arbitration case. And I would very surprized if somebody was able to find that I repeatedly seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first abritration case. Andries 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Charles Matthews/FrenchHumanism and Jean Prévost
On your page User:Charles Matthews/FrenchHumanism you had a red link to Jean Prévost. I just finished translating the Jean Prévost entry from the French Wikipedia, so there is now an article on Jean Prévost in the English Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the article and make any improvements that seem appropriate. --Eastmain 08:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

London meet
This is just a quick heads-up that there is a meet happening in London this Wednesday, 10 January 2006. Details are at Meetup/London. Thryduulf 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey I am working on Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased). What do you think so far? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't finished the main bulk of the article overview yet and have only started 8 episdoes. I saw you were one of the earliest editors. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to be careful about fair use images. Charles Matthews 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Guy Marchant, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. FirefoxMan 17:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That tag was an abuse of A7, in my view. See my comment on your Talk page. Charles Matthews 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RE Firefoxman /Charles Marchant
This is the same guy who wanted to zap your Rede Lecture, just after he did zap my Master of the Playing Cards (now reborn). I think there is a systemic problem here (not limited to him at all) - there are rumblings on various talk pages (User:DGG for example). I note the Edit review pages seem full of keen anti-vandals who have hardly added to the project at all - just zapped. All dead keen to be administrators. Johnbod 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, trigger-happy stuff. I have added a note to Firefoxman's review page. PS You must be a real Snow fan: you have made a hybrid of Guy Marchant and Charles March from ''Conscience of the Rich. Charles Matthews 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just careless, I'm afraid!  Johnbod 18:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence question
Hello, I had a question about the current Naming Conventions case. I was in the process of supplying evidence a couple weeks ago, when my wiki-time was interrupted by the holidays (and the fact that I got stuck in the New Mexico snowstorm for a few days). Upon my return to Wikipedia, I see that the voting phase on the case has already started, before I was able to finish supplying evidence, and before some of the other involved editors had returned from their own holiday break. :/ May I continue with supplying the rest of my evidence? Or would it be too late at this point? I'd posted alerts about my upcoming absence and return on the ArbCom talk pages, such as at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision, but I'm not sure if anyone saw them. Thanks for your time, Elonka 20:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you may. You should probably contact the clerk in the case, who can decide on any further action. Charles Matthews 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the extension, and again, please accept my apologies for the multiple delays. It's a been a really tough winter so far!  Since the power's back on though, I have finally been able to finish presenting my own evidence, as well as a few extra proposed principles and findings of fact on the Workshop page.  If you have time, I would appreciate if you could review them.  If not though, I understand.  To be honest, I feel better just knowing that I was able to complete my section, since its half-finished status was on my mind during the last couple weeks.


 * For what it's worth, I have no intention of challenging the final ArbCom decision, whichever way it goes. I see ArbCom as a useful part of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process.  And just as with an AfD or DRV discussion, I may not always agree with the decision of the closing admin, but I will respect it.  :)


 * Despite some of the other comments that have been made about my behavior throughout this process, it is my hope that ultimately it will be clear that I am a longtime hardworking Wikipedian (I think I'm currently on the list as one of the 200 most active editors), that I believe strongly in the project, and that in general I'm not groundzero for various disputes. In this one particular case though, I felt strongly that I had an obligation to speak up.  But I will be glad when the matter is finally resolved, as I am very much looking forward to getting back to writing articles! :)  Elonka 03:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that a significant part of Elonka's evidence is either misleading or downright false, as noted here.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wormingford
I have added an infobox. If you are aware of the population and/or the district that the parish is in please add it to the box. Thank you. Ksbrown talk 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not I. The original poster might, but that was an anon at Suggested Articles (see the initial edit summary). Charles Matthews 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks again
You wrote:
 * Can I comment that it is not within policy simply to edit out critical material from pages? Charles Matthews 12:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and I was planning to try to dig something about this controversy to put it in the article. But personally I think the edits made by the users in question ( (now that I re read the last one  I think I was a bit too fast to link it to all the other edits) are vindicative at best and clearly fail WP:NPOV. -- lucasbfr talk  14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the edits fail on tone. The editor contacted me offsite. I'm considering putting something there on the issue, but I'm taking advice first. Charles Matthews 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a few minutes to do a first version (very basic I am afraid). I felt bad about not really having the time to edit it before the week end. Feel free to rewrite and complete it! (at least the incident is mentioned now) -- lucasbfr talk 15:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(Hope this is the right place to feed back!) Appreciate the time both of you have spent on this one, and have read your comments on the other party's forum, Charles. Controversy section seems wise, discussion and abuse seem to have moved into the forums where they belong. I did agonize over deletion of whole comments, but need to respect pending legal case as well so also felt uncomfortable with improving tone/balance of them (length of their edits didn't help!). Shame I seem to have taken a bit of unjustified abuse elsewhere (you guys must be used to that!), but you've helped craft a balanced article so Wikipedia wins. Thanks. Jones rn 20:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Just doing my job'. Charles Matthews 10:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Motion to Close (Naming Conventions ArbCom Case)
I noticed the motion to close for this ArbCom case. I hope i'm not too late in asking the ArbCom members actively voting in this case to take a look at this request and consider it before closing the case? Thank you. --`/aksha 10:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Clifford Orwin
Since Clifford Orwin is on one of your to-do lists (I suppose that is what it is), you might be interested to know that an article on Orwin has been created by a new user, and immediately nominated for deletion. To be fair, the nominator seems also to be relatively new. up◦land 19:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidance
Re: Starwood Arb

I implore the arbitrators who have not recused themselves in this case to please give some direction in the Starwood Arb, or at least a timeline of when they will be able to deliberate. It quite literally has devolved into a Lord of the Flies scenario on the evidence and workshop pages, and the wikilawyering, off-topic diatribes and verbosity are making it difficult to make heads or tails of what is going on. I am not trying to impose upon the process, I am just asking for some feedback & order. - WeniWidiWiki 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Euler angles
Hi Charles - I see that you are a contributor to the talk:Euler angles page. Could you check out my comment there? Thanks - PAR 00:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Favor
Will you do me a favor and comment at my desk about the case AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Grandmaster? It would be a big help. Thanks. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass
I respectfully request that the arbitration committee lift the ban against me. Please let me know what procedure to follow and what policies to maintain best regards dr piotr blass www.pblass.com pblass2002@yahoo.com thank you in advance and please use my e mail since the ban makes it hard to communicate otherwise pb ps thanks for editing and defending zariski surfaces!!!!!!! pb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.168.221.210 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC).


 * You have to understand various things. Firstly, 'autobiographical' editing is strongly discouraged. That is, if you write here about yourself, or your own work, you may be putting yourself in a false position. Secondly, you need to respect Wikipedia policies: do not try to get round them, and do not attack those who are trying to enforce them. Charles Matthews 08:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Dowson
I have edited the Ernest Dowson page, but I am new to the business, and would appreciate it if you could have a look, since you seem to have been one of the regular contributors to that article. The facts I have changed are: the family business, which was not 'new' but inherited; dates and circumstances of parents' deaths (and reference to father's death as 'suicide', which it was not recorded as); date of meeting Adelaide Folitnowicz, her age at the time, the date of her marriage, her husband's occupation. My source is Jad Adams's biography. Presumably there is no point in citing the source of each fact, since all the information in the article is included in that source?John Gibbens 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Inline page references would actually be useful. Charles Matthews 19:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you 'disambiguate' a litle, for a beginner? Do you mean set up a References heading, with a footnote giving an Adams page reference for each individual fact? John Gibbens 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added one note to Ernest Dowson, to show the idea. Charles Matthews 08:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

RfArb regarding
I have completely revised my statement in regards to this RfArb I started regarding administrator User:Lucky 6.9. In particular, given a couple days to reflect on others' comments, I make a substantially different point, completely unrelated to furthering accusations toward the administrator. I would appreciate if you'd take a quick glance. Link Reswobslc 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI
Hi Charles -- I believe there are many problems with the current COI page, the most salient one being ambiguity (the page states both that editors with a COI should and should not edit), and a second being that the description as consensus seems rather debatable (I and may other editors have allowed, even encouraged, editors affiliated with their corporations, to engage in constructive editing.) Can we begin a discussion on this at the COI page? I have attempted to begin one, but three editors have refused to engage in substantive discussion (their essential point being that the consensus is settled and the matter's final.) I'll be offline for a bit, but on tomorrow. Sdedeo (tips) 05:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There may be room for improvement, surely. Considering however that this is just a guideline, and of recent formulation, and yet has now been cited numerous times in ArbCom cases, the content has surely served well. It is not really a question of 'allowing' or not editors with corporate connections to edit, is it? Anyone is 'allowed' to edit WP. What is not at all clear to anyone coming fresh to editing is where WP stands on COI, and what the implications are, of editing (in good faith, as it may be) articles where an editor is not just an encyclopedia compiler. Now, I think the page has done quite well on that, though people have tried to blur the clear outlines. Charles Matthews 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Charles -- just wanted to drop you a line and let you know it would be great to continue receiving your input on the COI guidelines. I don't know much about ArbCom cases, but if you could perhaps post some links to COI invocations that would be helpful in fixing things. My main issue here after discussion is that the article is very unclear. "Anyone is 'allowed' to edit WP" is not as obvious to you or me, and I (and others) read the guideline as currently claiming otherwise. In any case, let's take this to the COI talk page for further discussion. Sdedeo (tips) 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For example, the principle


 * In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. See WP:COI.


 * was passed in Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate, which has just closed.


 * Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, strongly discourages editing regarding an organization by those associated with the organization, especially in a public relations capacity. As applied to this matter, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies to those persons associated either with Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University or with critical former associates who are aggressively editing in a biased manner.


 * was passed, also recently, in Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris.


 * These principles are not contentious, it seems, in regard to Arbitration cases. Arbitrators seem to agree with me that COI, in the form of attachment to something (these cases are about a rock group and an educational establishment), causes serious problems and can make it well-nigh impossible for content disputes to be resolved. Charles Matthews 09:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Charles -- this is very helpful. If you're following the debate on the talk page (do please join in), we are currently arguing the correct way to express this without at the same time appearing to ban good faith edits from "interested" contributors entirely. Sdedeo (tips) 16:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that you need experience here to understand what is likely to be acceptable, and what is likely to cause trouble. Very few people straight off the street have the judgement required, to discriminate. Therefore the guideline has to tilt in the way it does. Charles Matthews 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here -- could you be more explicit? Milo and I agree that the current guideline is open to misinterpretation: he seems to think that that's OK. I believe that it is possible to write the guideline so that (in some asymptotic sense) it cannot be misinterpreted, and that maintaining a guideline that people are misreading is unfair. Sdedeo (tips) 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly like this style of putting words in people's mouths; you did it to me on WT:COI, and you have done it again here. The guideline is not 'unfair' at all. It gives entirely fair warnings, and tries very hard to explain the principle of unintended consequences of actions here. While it is always hard to argue that anything is perfectly written, a more practical point is that there is always some genius who thinks they can redraft with an improvement, when the effect is not that great. Charles Matthews 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I don't agree that the current guideline is open to misinterpretation (at least not beyond the fact that any guideline can be misinterpreted regardless of how well written it is). I agree with describing it as a "tilt".  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
Dear ArbComm Member of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University;

This note is to bring to your attention two issues which are creating upheaval in the article located here and placed on probation under the premise of "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee.". This request is based on enforcement or remedies stated in the arbitration process and failure to follow up on it.

1) An article-banned user orchestrated a come back through proxy IPs from Japan and then through an account "Some people" which has been blocked twice. The problem with this is that this user had modified the entire article in less than 12 hours on January 28 2007. This user partner, TalkAbout; acted in synchrony with 244 on that night and made some changes as well using "Some people" new version. User Andries had a minor edit of that version as well.

Request to investigate user Some people  Analysis of situation  Suspicion of sockpuppet account  Blocks to user Some people for "a reincarnation of the editor who formerly posted from the IP address 195.82.106.244"( As admin Thatcher put it) 

2) The only admin we've dealing with is Thatcher131. I would like to bring to your attention what I consider to be "lack of neutrality" and fairness from his/her part. Even though, user "Some people" was blocked by Thatcher131 under a strong suspicion of him being user 244 (banned by the ArbComm for a year) Thatcher131 supported the new version of the page which are the versions of a banned user. A request for enforcement of arbitration has been submitted long time ago before user 195.82.106.244 (aka 244) made several changes through his sockpuppet account "Some people" but the request is still sitting there.

User "Some people" transformed the article with over 30 + entries on 22:41 28 Jan 2007 and then User TalkAbout added some content and at that point, that was considered the new "good version" of the article.

I would like to request the following: 1) the article to be reverted to a state before "Some people" took over. 2) To change the "admin in charge", Thatcher131 to someone who is not emotionally involved in this issue (Thatcher131 was the clerk in the arbitration case and helped user 195.82.106.244 to file the case and presented some evidence against me but not against 244)and that could enforce normal wikipedia procedures are taking place. I appreciate your time and prompt consideration on this.

Truly Yours, avyakt7 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you certainly shouldn't attack the clerk in an Arbitration case for being helpful. There is no 'admin in charge', either. If you raise any matters at WP:ANI, you will have the involvement of whatever admins care to get involved. Charles Matthews 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on User talk:Fred Bauder . Thatcher131 22:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply Charles. I am not concerned on attacking Thatcher131, I am concerned in enforcing what the ArbComm decided. It sends a very bad message if a user who is banned is allowed to post and then his posts are taken into consideration. Is that reasonable? Thank you, avyakt7 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on same user Talk page Thank you. avyakt7 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Modularity theorem
I tried to move the page with the bizarre name Taniyama–Shimura theorem (whose idea was that?) to the correct name Modularity theorem, but this seems to require deleting the latter page first. R.e.b. 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made the move anyway, since I agree with changing the name. Charles Matthews 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/Community enforced mediation
I've based a proposal on the mediation from the Piotrus-Ghirla case. Your input would be welcome. Please reply on the proposal talk page. Durova Charge! 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Literary executor
Perhaps, considering that Gore Vidal is still alive, Parini meant that it's not yet possible for him to be that? --Michael Snow 21:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you read Parini's own blog? It's a self-description. And anyway one can be appointed/nominated an ordinary executor to the estate of someone living. I suspect he took it out because he thought it wasn't worth mentioning. It would be more interesting if Vidal had changed his mind ... Charles Matthews 21:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're probably right, sorry, I misunderstood and thought you meant Parini was blogging about Wikipedia, not just being quoted on the subject, so I didn't realize you were pointing to that as the source. --Michael Snow 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Will you ban me for making responsible edits on Sathya Sai Baba?
Several members of the arbcom (Fred, Kirill L., and James F.) have supported a motion in the arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba2 that states that I have edited the article Sathya Sai Baba responsibly, but they also supported a motion to have me banned indefinitetly from the article. I think this is contradictory and I strongly protest against a ban that is so poorly motivated. Where are the diffs that show that I have made recently irresponsible edits? Nobody has provided them. I hope that you will not support the motion to ban the contributor who has written >80% of the article incl. the sources. I have also written >95% of the article Sathya Sai Baba movement incl. sources. Andries 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked quite some time ago for clarification on the point, whether your editing was disruptive (and asked for diffs). The effect has been to have some change made in the wording of the remedy. I have, since the case was first brought, asked for 'conflict of interest' of all parties to be considered. Since I was closely associated with the drafting of WP:COI, and since almost every week now we have some high-profile case (Microsoft, AstroTurf) in which the COI guideline is important, I want to understand the issues very clearly here.


 * At present I don't find the case satisfactory, on either of those two main things. So far, other parties have been added in the remedies. Since we closed so many of the other cases recently, we shall soon have to discuss how this one is to be resolved. Charles Matthews 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. I can only repeat what I have already stated many times. I deny that I have a conflict of interest; it has always been my intention to write an NPOV article. Of course, I have my POV on the matter, but that is a different issue. If I were an activist in Wikipedia then why would I have | created a lengthy article on the subject in 2004 without a single word of criticism? If the arbitration wants to get rid of a seemingly never-ending dispute by banning all the contributors then I have some understanding for it, because there seem to be too many arbcom cases and you are all unpaid volunteers. But banning for such a reason should not be worded as if the reason is disruptive editing by contributors. Andries 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The stated reason why Kirill L. thinks that I have a COI is because of my affilation to the website of concerned Dutch former followers www.exbaba.com I deny that my editing behavior will be different when I disaffiliate from the website. To say that I have a conflict of interest on the matter due to my afffiliation with exbaba.com is like saying that protestant Christian has a conflict of interest on the article christianity due to his affiliation with a local protestant church. The protestant will not edit the article Christianity any differently if s/he formally disaffiliates from the local protestant church, because her/his POV stays the same. Andries 22:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The specific issue about activism can be defined in terms of the 'Campaigning' section on WP:COI: Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest. I think this principle is widely accepted; but it says may, so it is not decisive in any given case. That is why there is a difficulty in Arbitration on this point. Charles Matthews 09:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Charles, from my point of view, the problems the case needs to address are these:
 * 1. Editing to include ridiculously positive info, like the "fact" that a kirlian photographer said that Sai Baba had a "divine" aura
 * 2. Editing to include negative information based on personal experience and original research not backed up by reliable sources, including guilt by association
 * 3. The maintenance by several parties of attack web sites, and participation in yahoo groups discussions, that attack each other by name, sometimes with specific reference to wikipedia editing (as one editor said to me, "how can I work with this person here when he says such things about me there")
 * I could workshop a bunch of specific findings of fact on edit warring, talk page combat, and admin-shopping by all sides but it ultimately comes down to these three issues, I think. Thatcher131 13:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are real difficulties in giving offsite activities status as evidence on a level with diffs here. The soundest basis for an article or topic ban has to be edits that cut across basic content policies. I'm not saying that offsite activities that are admitted aren't relevant to setting remedies. Charles Matthews 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thatcher131
 * ad 1. I agree. This miracle that is not described by scholarly or scientific sources was moved by SSS108 from the article Sathya Sai Baba movement to the article Sathya Sai Baba. I vaguely remember that I had moved it from the article Sathya Sai Baba to the article Sathya Sai Baba movement long ago after it had been inserted there by a pro-SSB editors. Thousands of miracles are attributed to SSB and I think the only miracles that should be described in any of the SSB related article are the ones described by scholarly sources.
 * ad 2. Untrue, this had been removed long ago. The guilt by association if there was any was made by reputable sources (in the Times in three articles by Dominic Kennedy), not by the editors of the SSB article. In at least one of the suicides (the Michael Pender/Keith Ord case) Kennedy did not just make guilt by association, because Pender claimed to be sexually abused by SSB and was seriously distraught by it.
 * ad 3. I think that lumping together all websites under the label "attack sites" is unfair. Criticism of the public figure Sathya Sai Baba (such as on www.exbaba.com) is very different from the websites by SS108 that is full of ad-hominem attacks on the critics of SSB, who are not public figurees. I have been hardly active on SSB yahoo groups the last two years and have harly if ever abusive attacks on devotees or SSB apologists. I do not remember ever having done that.
 * I fully admit that there is talk page combat, but I see little wrong with this.
 * Andries 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am currently spending a few hours reviewing the entire history of the main SSB page, diff by diff. I'll report on my findings to the ArbCom. Charles Matthews 21:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your effort and many thanks for your alternative motion that strikes as much fairer. Andries 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

New Issue: Controversial material
I will like to inform you that Andries has once again reinserted very controversial claim into Sathya Sai article as of yesterday (February 8th 2007) about Sai Baba sex change titled "Alleged sex change". We had a long discussion related to this under User_talk:Fred_Bauder/Archive_38 in Fred Bauder talk page. Even Fred agreed this claim does not have a reliable source of Sai Baba actually doing it (Changing his sex from time to time). Andries never discussed about this exceptional claim in the Sathya Sai Baba talk page with other editors. He is pushing his POV again. He is not open to discussion on this. He does not want third party (administrators & arbitrators) to verify the sources he is using for this claims to see if the sources / claims is reliable.

Problems with this claim: The claim lacks sound editorial judgement. The claim is biased not supported by reliable sources. The exceptional claim is in question on how reliable it is? I don’t understand why he is keen to reintroduce again & again controversial material into this article when it is under arb.com and want to repeatedly disrupt the article. Wikisunn 9th February 2007


 * Please note that content disputes, as such, are not in the Arbitration remit. We do not directly decide whether contested material should appear in an article. Charles Matthews 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikisunn, I have repeatedly explained to you that the claim is sourced to multiple reliable sources including Nagel's 1994 University press article about Sathya Sai Baba its eponymous movement, as mentioned in the inline references. It is true that I am not very open to discuss removal of contents sourced to multiple reliable sources, especially not when the removal is so poorly motivated. Andries 18:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries first discuss your exceptional claims with other editors in the talk page. Let other editors verify your claim to see if it is reliable. You are no exception to this rule. You cannot keep pushing your POV and disrupting this article. Why are so reluctant discussing this with other editors. Wikipedia policy and guidelines on content Decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Policies_and_guidelines clearly states as follows "Decisions on the content and editorial processes of Wikipedia are made largely through consensus decision-making." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making.

Wikisunn 9th February 2007
 * I am willing to have a reasonable debate about it, but what is there to debate when you do not even address the question of the multiple reliable sources that I have used in a reasonable and informed way? What is wrong with
 * 1. 1994 Nagel's article published by the Free university of Amsterdam press,
 * 2. HP/De tijd,
 * 3. Helena Klitsie's book and ,
 * 4. and Tal Brooke?
 * Andries 18:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, If you are willing to discuss then let us discuss this in the talk page and please don't add controversial content with out discussing first with other editors and disrupt the article. The claim that Sathya Sai Baba changed from male to female and then back to male just to have sex from one instant to another is ridiculous and highly questionable. This claim lacks sound editoral judgement. That's why it must be discussed with other editors. The sources / claim must be verified.

Wikisunn 9th February 2007


 * I am busy discussing it with you, though I notice that you still have to start with serious discussion. I have repeatedly asked you what is wrong with the sources that I used. The sources are okay, but it is not okay to remove a statement sourced to multiple reputable sources only because the statement does not fit into your belief system.Andries 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Andries, I will start a discussion in Sathya Sai Baba talk page regarding this exceptional claim we can have a detailed discussion there. This is arbitrator's talk page this is not the right forum for our discussions. Remember we are not the only editors there are other editors when you want add controversial material you have discuss with everybody and arrive at consensus. You know the rule so don't break it. So let's discuss it in the talk page.

Wikisunn 9th February 2007

I think is is very unfair and against the rules that information sourced to multiple reliable sources is removed. Again, I admit that the claim is exceptional by any standards, but do not blame when the outcome is strange when I only report what reputable sources have stated. I think that inclusion of a claim sourced to multiple reliable sources shows good editorial standards. Better sourcing than a peer reviewed article published in university press magazine is not possible. (Nagel, 1994 De Sai Paradox)Andries 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the sources like Nagel or Helena Klitsie they are all giving the story related by a third unknown person who saw the claim, they never said they experienced it directly. As SS108 pointed out Regarding Tal Brooke's third-hand account of "Patrick" in his book, Lawrence A. Bapp said of it, "The animus of Brooke's book (1979) is too strong for one to have much confidence in its accuracy." A interesting opinion from a scholar.


 * Andries you are they only person calling your sources reliable and pushing for publishing this ridiculous claim. So far in all these discussions in arbitrators page and in discussion with other editors, Administrator, arbitrator and all other editors have opposed publishing this claim. Why do you keep pushing your POV. Why do you want to disrupt this article? If you keep disrupting the article during arb.com, where is the guarantee that you won't disrupt this article after arb.com by writing controversial claims and unreliable sources.

Wikisunn 12th February 2007
 * Nagel gave the story of a named person called Keith Ord. Nagel found it remarkable that Ord confirmed Brooke's bizarre story, though like Babb she critized (some aspects of) Tal Brooke's writings. Wikisunn, I think that you are disrupting the article by repeatedly removing contents sources to multiple reliable sources. Andries 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries,


 * Look at your own statement for a moment you agreed that Nagel gave the story of a named person called Keith Ord. You want to add a derogatory claim in the article about Sai Baba because Nagel has written a story of unknown person? Now you want to show a story as a evidence for defaming Sai Baba?
 * First you add controversial claims to the article with no reliable source. You are pushing your POV, disrupting an article and then you are blaming me?.You never discussed this ridiculous claim with any editor. You know the rule that every editor has to discuss such exceptional claim with others before adding to the article. You broke the rule knowingly.
 * You are the only person claiming that this ridiculous claim of Sai Baba changing his genitals for having sex from time to time makes sense though it is against common sense and sound editorial judgement. Every body involved in this article including the administrator, arbitrator and all the editors have opposed this controversial claim and its unreliable multiple sources.
 * Inspite of all editors opposing such a content with no reliable source, if you still push for adding this controversy to the article then all I can say is you are not being a responsible wikipedia editor and proving that you are fulfilling your role as an activist. There is no point in arguing with an activist as you are never going to listen to others views / concerns and will keep pushing your agenda of disrupting the article until the other editor gives up. Wikisunn 12th February 2007

Why are you discussing this here? Charles Matthews 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Charles, Sorry about the discussions here in your talk page I told Andries to stop discussing here but he kept on responding so I had reply back but I won't be adding any more comments here. Thanks. Wikisunn 12th February 2007



Asmodeus
Hi Charles. Regarding Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist which says "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." Since you've has some less than satisfactory interactions with Asmodeus you should know that we have two new disruptive editors at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan, and, who are definitely exhibiting a 'a similar editing pattern'. And since Sheerfirepower after several words of caution is already bandying about terms like "making matters worse for himself by using his sysop powers to threaten me" and implied legal threats like "Asmodeus up there sounds like he might be getting ready to sue your asses off" I thought you or Fred (who I've left a similar note) would have a word with him before others assume these are Langan meat puppets and they are blocked under the provision provided above. FeloniousMonk 20:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, what I'd like is very polite requests for any factual corrections to be detailed on the Talk page; while you put in a CheckUser request. The discussion on the Talk page would not yet really qualify as disruptive. Any more legal threats and the editor in question can be blocked, of course. Charles Matthews 20:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Motion to revoke remedies of Kosovo arbitration committee (Oct 2006)
Dear Charles, on 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have raised some questions regarding this remedy (see below), and Fred Bauder has now initiated a motion to revoke these remedies. Since you were one of the members of the arbitration committee I respectfully ask you to consider my case. I have also posted some comments regarding Dmcdevit's reply, here. The questions I raised regarding the decision of the Kosovo arbcom were: Sincere regards Osli73 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
 * it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
 * is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

k3


It follows from results of Arthur Ogus that every supersingular k3 surface with Artin invariant <=2 is unirational.



Also :Rudakov,Schafarevich and more recently Shimada have shown that every supersingular k3 surface in characteristic two is a purely inseparable double cover of the projective plane with singularities resolved.

Shimada has shown in characteristic 2 that supersingular K3 surfaces are double covers of the projective plane.[2] In this case of characteristic 2 the double cover may need to be an inseparable covering.

Categories
Hi, Charles. Just a suggestion -- when you are adding the categories to the articles, capitalize the first letter of the name after the pipe: not. Currently, a second alphabetical set of articles is being created within each category (just go to Category:Nicknames and see what I mean). Thanks, and Cheers. -- Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 15:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Charles Matthews 15:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on Arbitration Case
There is some confusion with regard to an Arbitration Case you handled. Would you please comment. Requests for arbitration Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Banning an editor from an article whose edits are described as responsible
You may be interested to read the following thread in which James writes that banning me from Sathya Sai Baba is mainly due to my perceived WP:COI. See User_talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration Kirill has made similar remarks, though not so strongly worded. See User_talk:Andries/Werdnabot_archive I have repeatedly asked for diffs that show that I am an activist or that I make disruptive edits (to UninvitedCompany, Fred Bauder, and Kirill Lokshim), but received no reply, or in the case of Kirill a reply that I could easily refute See User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin/Archive_3 At least Kirill took the time to reply.

I would like to point out that the banning policy states that "Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct." I know that there is nothing to do about me getting banned, but I think that there is something wrong with the arbcom. I guess the root cause is lack of time.

I am worried that user:Flonight explicitly writes that she does not want to be fair to editors. See thread User_talk:Andries/Werdnabot_archive If that is the rule then why should I be fair to her, to you, or to Wikipedia? Being fair is a generally accepted basic rule for any community. Shall we replace the word community in Wikipedia?

Andries 06:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FloNight correctly says that in the end, the mission is more important to Arbitration than equity. Now, you know what I have argued because I have put the basic points in the Proposed Decision page. I worked right through the early history of the SSB page, and decided that you were (up to say mid-2005) a constructive editor there, responsive to the need to improve NPOV in the article. What has mattered, it seems, is what then happened, in prolonged edit warring. There is scope for a range of views from Arbitrators on this matter, because two concepts, 'reliable source', and 'conflict of interest', are not to be defined in black-and-white terms. In matters of religion and politics, I don't think one expects 100% agreement on what a reliable source is. It has been argued that you have taken an extreme interpretation; while I may not agree, I see that as a possible analysis. As far as conflict of interest is concerned, this is a difficult (you could say unsolved) problem for WP, to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia in the face of conflicted editors (who may also be the best-informed editors on a topic). The 'Campaigning' section on WP:COI is intended to explain COI arising from 'activism'; it is a 'soft' policy (i.e. this has only the status of a guideline), but the trend of Arbitration cases has tended to support this general interpretation. My view was that I would like to see you edit in the situation where some of the more obvious POV pushers had been removed from the article. Other Arbitrators clearly do not see it that way. Charles Matthews 13:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with my "extreme interpretation" of reliable sources? It will be clear that I do not see my interpretation as extreme and I do not even know why anyone would see my interpretation of reliable sources as extreme. If you want to see how I edit when POV pushers are not there then please check the uncontroversial article Sathya Sai Baba movement. I wrote the article for more than 95% and there have been very little disputes, reverts, and discusion. Andries 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Extreme' here means that your idea of 'reliable source' is more inclusive than some of the Arbitrators would like. I perfectly understand what you are saying, and added a proposed remedy in line with my views on this. It did not receive support. Charles Matthews 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks. Finally somebody takes the time to explain me something. But this could have been said so much earlier. If I do not get answers to questions what is wrong with my editing behavior then I will make the same mistakes on other articles.  Andries 14:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am unusually active, bold and hasty at Sathya Sai Baba movement before the topic ban takes its effect, because I believe that it will not be improved by anyone after I leave. I have been the only major and serious contributor since I created the article in May 2004. Andries 13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

SSB ArbCom case
Despite the ArbCom case is near closing, I don't see the specific point resolved, which pulled me this time into this mess. You've voted yes to the statement that http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ is an anti-SSB-website run by Robert Priddy -- which I fully agree with.

You've also voted yes to the clarifucation that the the remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles.

What is still open is my pet interest in the whole thing: Is it OK to add attack websites (run by the article's subject) as external link to the article? It is crystal clear that they are not valid sources, but should they be linked at all?

Or is it OK in the general case but only outruled in this special case (why? -- I'm still scratching my head on this. I've also asked at the talk page.

Pjacobi 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the default, as is seen in a number of cases, is that it is not OK to add 'attack sites'. The reasoning would be that factual material available only from propaganda sources is not good as a source for WP. We don't have a good definition of 'attack site', of course; hostile but careful journalism, that was not very balanced, might or might not be an attack site. Charles Matthews 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This was never explained in WP:EL. Andries 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about policy. I was talking about AC views, at present, in order to try to answer the question. No particular case implies a policy. Charles Matthews 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Charles, not linking to attack websites at all would be my preferred choice (and is essentially the policy of dewiki), but it would undoubtly raise long discussions for difficult cases.
 * But your reasoning given to this seems totally flawed to me: External Links typically don't serve at sources, in many cases they won't be considered valid sources for Wikipedia.


 * I agree. But in general an external link that is not referred to is less essential to an article. (I prefer more specific inline links, myself.) So that an editor who wars over inserting an external link that is not an essential source, against others who say 'attack site', may be falling into bad behaviour. The AC looks at behaviour. Charles Matthews 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To make this more specific, please consider three cases I repeatedly have provided as comparison:
 * Linking of http://www.stormfront.org from the Stormfront (website) article
 * Linking of http://www.chick.com from the Jack Chick article (and mindbooglingly from a number of other articles).
 * Linking of http://www.xenu.de from Tilman Hausherr (and some other articles).
 * All of these are attack web sites in my view, Tilmas site perhaps a borderline case.
 * Pjacobi 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If an attack site is defined as site that will not say anything positive about the subject, but only negative then many critical websites (incl. Priddy's anti-SSB sites) cannot be classified as such. Andries 14:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not ready with a good definition. Charles Matthews 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

India-Pakistan
I have been asked by a party to draw your attention to new third-party evidence on the evidence page. David Mestel(Talk) 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You Were Featured on ABC
See - http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2928756&page=1 - // Internet Esquire 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating "Watt (disambig)" for deletion
Please note: I am nominating Watt (disambig) for deletion. You are shown in the history as having edited this page. If you wish to object, check the details by clicking the link above.

Regards, JohnI 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Daily Mirror article
Saw the article featuring you on page 6 of the Mirror today ... nice to see Wikipedia painted in a slightly rosier light than recently - well done! Neil  (not Proto ►)  20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
Regarding your comment "The ArbCom can properly look at any community ban; but not necessarily as a broad-based case. I don't think a community-banned user has that by right (I mean, to bring a blunderbuss against all admins and others who interacted with them)." in your vote to accept the BabyDweezil case, I am not sure what your comment means. Could you clarify? Navou banter  / contribs


 * Someone was commenting that a strong community ban could not or should not be reviewed by the AC. I believe that to be wrong. But what I was trying to express was, that in reviewing an appeal of such a ban, the AC is not saying that it will look at all 'editor conduct' around the case. A broad-based case like that would make all admins and others involved in the case parties. I don't think that's the right way. If we lift a ban there is scope for a further case, assuming admin powers have been in some way abused. Even if we don't, there can be a case based around the same incidents. But in saying the AC hears appeals on community bans, I don't think the AC concedes that it will always accept cases of broad scope around community-banned users. Charles Matthews 09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your clarification. Navou  banter  / contribs  23:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK
HI Charles. Just want to congratulate you on your contributions to wikipedia. Wow! How on earth do you manage to find time to contribute 100,000 odd edits? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 14:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nearly 100 per day, for three years, will do it. But ask Rich Farmborough. Charles Matthews 14:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I have just seen you have been a member for over 3 years. I think i am currently 108th - it also includes quick edits though I believe. I thought Rich Farmborough's edits were operated automatically - you mean that all those edits are actually done by him? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you around ?
Need to pass a message urgently, which I'll mail after getting an ack. Tintin 08:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, online now. Charles Matthews 08:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just sent you a mail. Tintin 08:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Tintin 09:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

B.J. Snowden
Back in September you moved the B.J. Snowden article to B. J. Snowden. I objected here and when I provided two examples where the Wikipedia standard is not appropriate, I received no reply. Could you please move the article back to the way it was when I created it, as that is the format used by the singer herself as well as the label website for her release. Barring that, please let me know, and I will move it to BJ Snowden. - BalthCat 03:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved it to BJ Snowden. On the original point, it is important that people should be able to find the page by typing in something conventionally spaced. Here ir seems that for showbiz reasons BJ should be used; but we still need the redirects. Charles Matthews 09:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Though with redirects I don't really see how justify trying to subject Wikipedia convention on people who actively write their names differently in any capacity, show business or otherwise.  Personally, if I know of a person by their first initials and last name I will likely type their initials without space.  If I chose to go by M.D. then that's my business.  But anyway, that's more of a comment on the convention than for you :P  Night. - BalthCat 04:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir
I'm pretty new here and still learning the local ethos. You have voted to block indefinitely my participation in some areas. Would it be appropriate to ask you to reconsider? Is that procedurally possible at this time?

Have you examined my contributions to Wikipaedia? Are there any problems there?

If you have the time, could you post the reasoning behind your vote? Thanks in advance. Eschoir 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll listen to what you have to say on this one. My reason for voting as I did was the apparent fact that you were bringing here to Wikipedia quarrels that arose elsewhere. We really do not like that. Charles Matthews 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Walter article - false information
I am being wrongly and anonymously accused of libel by for trying to post the court's ruling about Richard Walter on this article. These false accusations are intended to move the discussion away from Mr. Walter whom has long been regarded as a charlatan by the courts. The wikipedia entry contains false information that must be corrected unless it is the intention of Wikipedia to support the dissemination of factually incorrect information.

I have posted multiple times regarding this in the talk section and you have seen my post to the arbitration page which should be sufficient proof of the truth.

Please contact me directly at: bturvey@forensic-cience.com

Brent


 * I have to ask you whether you have read Biographies of living persons, and consider that your postings conform to that policy. Charles Matthews 22:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Walter article - Libel
Brent continues to write libel. His above post states: "Mr. Walter whom has long been regarded as a charlatan by the courts." That is, in itself, a libelous statement.

To accuse someone of perjury is a serious charge. Mr. Turvey makes that claim on his own websites, but that is a matter between Mr. Walter and Mr. Turvey to settle in civil court.

I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard.

In reading the court document, in the final ruling in the Drake case, the judge overturns the appeal.

In his opinion, the judge states that Mr. Walter "may" have committed perjury (which he did not), but he rules that such an issue is a moot point because Mr. Drake does not have the basis for appeal.

Thus, Drake's appeal, and all of its allegations are ruled false.

I welcome you to read the decision on Lexis-Nexis and not Mr. Turvey's doctored version on his websites.

While on Lexis-Nexis, I would also encourage you to read about Mr. Turvey's false statements under oath in Mississippi last year and his previous false statements under oath regarding his employment by the Sitka, Alaska Police Department as a detective. (Mr. Turvey lost in court in his bid to claim that he was employed as a detective in Sitka).

Because Mr. Turvey was not allowed into the AAFS, he has spent his short career creating his own organizations and schools. His organizations are nothing more than him and a few of his former "students" posing as a substitute for the AAFS.

Still, the bitterness of rejection has never been exorcised from his soul. He maintains a website that lists several well-respected forensic pathologists as "frauds" (Mr. Walter is not his only victim).

With all due respect, his situation reminds me of a jealous child in the playground who wants to "take his toys and play on his own".

I suggest that the Richard Walter page remain permanently locked in its pre-March 17th state.

Please disregard Bturvey's threat to "show why wikipedia can't be trusted as a source in my class". He has many more enemies than friends; no one will stand in his defense.

{user|Buzzle45} 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The word 'charlatan' is certainly quite unacceptable here. It is unlikely that the Richard Walter page will be protected for long, however. Charles Matthews 08:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hagiography
I have seen a few articles on hagiographers but I haven't seen a category for it yet? Do you think it should be created? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ <font size="-4"><font color="Purple">"I've been expecting you" 14:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

E.g articles such as Jean Bolland, Alban Butler and Reginald of Durham should be categorized as Hagiographers as well as monks etc. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  <font size="-4"><font color="Purple">"I've been expecting you" 14:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it would be useful; subcategory of Category:Christian hagiography? In which case it would be Category:Christian hagiographers. And subcategory of some other category of writers, presumably. Charles Matthews 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So I've created it, and populated it with some people. Charles Matthews 14:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. Yes that would be Christian hagiography. Glad you created it. I would suggest placing a populate tag in that new category as that subject does not appear that well covered. Thats an interesting topic you are covering there, I am glad that there are users such as yourself who are filling in biographical gaps when the focus is far too much on people of the 20th century. Although there is clearly less inforamtion available perhaps the more you delve into the past I do feel that wikipedia needs to try to address a more even coverage of different eras and topics, historically, geographically and culturally if it is to become what it clearly has the potential to become. Give it ten years and the progession I know will be amazing!!

I have recently set up WkiProject Tibet including Tibetan Buddhism with the aim of expanding work in this field as I feel it is not all that well documented. One thing, if you could respond on my talk page when I leave a message that would be great - this way I am far more likely to receive your message!! Keep it up. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ <font size="-4"><font color="Purple">"I've been expecting you" 17:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been drawn into medieval history, not through expertise though. One technical reason is the need to create great piles of redirects; which has the satisfying consequence of tying up apparently unrelated names. It is also very peaceful! Charles Matthews 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Starwood RfAr case
User:Kathryn NicDhàna has given another statement (I think it's semi-evidence, but it's placed on the main case page) at here. Please advise action. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)