User talk:Topology Expert/Archive 13

Concrete personal attacks without proof
You have made a very concrete personal attack against Mathsci in a situation where it wasn't relevant at all. Mathsci told you that you were wrong. I showed you a thread which it would be very easy to misremember ("Mathsci accused someone of COI editing" can easily become "someone accused Matsci of COI editing" in memory). And then your response contains "if I remember correctly" and "I am not bothered enough" in strategic places? WTF?

From WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I spent quite a bit time trying to dig up what the hell you can have been talking about. I found plenty of evidence of very bad blood between Arcfrk and Mathsci, but nothing that looks even remotely like what you claimed. Retract your attack or substantiate it. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to second this: your comments about Mathsci were not only completely inappropriate to the discussion but, as it turned out, factually inaccurate.


 * I am sorry to say that I find your participation in this Bishop/Keisler discussion to be wholly disruptive. You don't seem to want to be bothered with: (i) core policies, (ii) civil and mature behavior towards others, (iii) documenting your assertions; even your dedication to (iv) facual correctness is very often negligent: the idea to check what you think are the facts against something outside of your own head is something that I have tried to instill in you for many months now, apparently without success.  I'm sure you know that I have been more patient with you than most other wikipedians: whenever your actions have been at all productive I have supported and defended them.  But you have some real issues to work on, for instance honesty: you often make implicit appeals to your own authority to justify your work (that others who are not "real mathematicians" should stay out of your way).  But you claim not only to be an expert mathematician but a researcher in no less than four different subject areas.  You seem to think that being a topology expert means being able to prove Urysohn's Lemma with the book closed.  (By way of comparison, I would never call myself a topology expert: it is not my research specialty.)  In the past you have claimed to be a professor, a professional violinst and most recently a child prodigy.  I am no longer sure what to believe, but I don't believe you are currently being a productive wikipedian. Plclark (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)