User talk:Expert in topology

Dear Expert in Topology,

Thanks for the suppot; I appreciate it!

Topology Expert (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, are you by chance an editor in Wikibooks?

Topology Expert (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I fail to see where exactly I did support you, BUT the nick might have suggest it and it was on purpose. In any case, I think that kind of condescending style is not welcome on the wiki. Maybe I'll elaborate on Oded's talk. Anyway, I'll be quitting soon. Cheers. Expert in topology (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC) PS. no, I don't go to Wikibooks.

To 'expert in topology':

Could you please quit and stop writing in my style? It seems that you want to get me blocked and I think that if you are going to quit, then quit. Wikipedia is about helping others so that everyone gets the opportunity to understand certain concepts in mathematics. So far, you have shown no signs that you are willing to expand Wikipedia. I at least argued with Oded for a reason whereas you are arguing for no reason. If you are not going to make any contributions then I suggest you quit.

Topology Expert (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Basically, a few days ago. I just stated my point of view in a response (I have a right to do it?) and don't intend to take any further actions unless a reaction is really necessary. And don't worry, just walk your way, you won't get blocked. Peace... Expert in topology (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Topology Expert for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Oded (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarify unrelated to the sock
I wanted to clarify just to you why I think this account name turned out to be the wrong way to handle things. Basically every community has problems and disagreements. A disinterested third party can help people get perspective, but a community member behind a mask who has clearly chosen a side, can create lots of problems.

Probably the first and the worst such unexpected harmful consequence is that suddenly there is a "side" at all. Before it was just all of us together, but after your post on Oded's talk page suddenly it became possible to be "against Oded" and "for T.E.". Ideally, we want Oded and T.E. to work out there own little bit of consensus, both on that specific article, and on how we do things on the math articles. Both were getting used to the idea of conflicting definitions and the need for sourcing, but now both are learning all about useless things like Sock policy.

The second main problem I see is now there is some distrust in the community. Are you T.E. in disguise making trouble? Are you some ancient banned user back to make trouble? Are you one of the formerly respected, but now distrusted "nice guys" who just makes socks when they want to harass people? Suddenly this account name is setup as a "bad guy" (remember there are only two sides, "our side" and the "bad guys"), and instead of handling the ridiculously large backlog of math articles needing basic and expert attention, now we have two of our editors thinking about defense.

As far as I know, WP:WPM participants are not shy about mentioning mistakes. If there is some systematic problem, then we usually talk about it at WT:MATH. If the people involved in the problem are all committed to being part of the community, then it usually works out nearly immediately. For instance, T.E. had some statement about intervals in the order topology. Oded and I gave counterexamples, and asked for a reference. T.E. insisted he was right, but was not rude about it. Since he seemed earnest, I checked again, and found that I had a math error, and that Oded was using a definition that differed from mine. I asked on the ref desk, and Algebraist fixed the statement to be sourced and true under wikipedia's standard conventions. At another time, T.E. and Oded had a disagreement about some proof about the reals being uncountable. T.E. did some major cleanup on the style, but included some poorly worded false statements in the same edit, so the proof got reverted with them. I restored the proof (on the article where it fit), and talked to T.E. about it. I think from our discussion he decided to write an article about the type of topological space I chose as my hypothesis. No war, just one nice, sourced statement, one nice proof in the right place, and one whole new article (that incidentally was free from major stylistic problems, perhaps T.E.'s first!).

Basically I am just saying that overall the community has good faith, and we can work things out as a community. I don't think you needed a new username to call out some bad behavior. I've only been here a year, but I've never seen someone ostracized from the math community; rather I've seen people decide they themselves were outsiders. If you see problems again, I think it is safe to point them out (politely of course) using your main account. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the effors you put into this issue. Interestingly, I agree with many of your points and where I do not 100% agree, I still appreciate your point of view. A few words just to give mine.


 * IMHO some 'sides' emerged before my first edit (but now it's not very helpful to analyse it further). Now it's finished. As the last word -just applied for a block to make it shorter- a few remarks of a more general nature.


 * In a big picture it's not about mistakes only. You know, we come here to add to a free project. We waste some time that is a sparse resource. There might be many possible motivations to do that, but the value of a "good" collaboration is difficult to overestimate. This involves a contributor friendly attitude, which implies e.g. a non-personal approach, especially when there are disagreements and mistakes (they arise quite often).


 * Since this is a public place with eternal logs, a 'mask' is a fundamental right. I suppose you use a 'mask' too, but I may be wrong at this point; certainly it's true for others.


 * This is closely related to or strengthen by another fundamental view. Basically, we are defined by what we say here. The contributions stand for themselves and the author behind doesn't add that much. Sometimes it's helpful to have nicks. You may e.g. suppose that an addition by a long standing author is correct.


 * By no means a nick is mandatory, though. You are welcome to use your IP that changes every time you reboot. Once you put a 'mask', changing it is almost meaningless. The point is that, inevitably, behind an IP or a nick there is always a person. It doesn't really matter who (a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet?). What one says must pay for itself. So suppose I rebooted and wanted to use the method in it's pure form. More or less, one has a right to do this. Attaching my past to recent edits doesn't really add anything, esp. if it's quite unrelated. Not a personal question, nor intended as a nasty one, but would you listen more carefully if you knew it's one of "ours"? Do you like to use old prejudices in new issues? If this was a norm I had yet another reason to quit.
 * Anyway, sorry if there were some unexpected harmful consequences of my actions. I didn't expect the sockpuppet case (BTW, was just typing my intendedly last edit when it opened; then felt necessary to put some more).
 * Now, as everyone has explained his POV, I suggest we can stop here and get back to other more productive tasks. Goodbye and good luck. Expert in topology (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)