Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mathematosis




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Userfy to User:Gregbard/Mathematosis. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Mathematosis
This page is a WP:POINTy page set up to support an uncivil template see deletion discussion at Templates_for_discussion --Dmcq (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy if requested by author. Not appropriate for namespace. Glass  Cobra  00:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy. Normally, essays may be in Wikipedia space, but this one is contrary to policy, constains staments contrary to fact, and supported only by the creator, as far as I can tell.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy This may be in the project namespace, but it's still a prime example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. According to WP:PG, "essays...that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace." If that discussion at TfD is any indication, widespread consensus is against this user's opinions on "mathematosis." I would support userfying if it weren't for the WP:POINT violations, which leads me to support possible deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom. 71.139.11.55 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. Gregbard is regularly in a minority of one when discussing mathematical topics with experts. Sometimes he tries to use the kind of communication common in mathematics and fails miserably (I remember him adding something like "foobar is a tuple (a, b, c)" to an article while totally forgetting to mention what a, b and c are supposed to be, thus retaining only the technical part of the definition which Quine rejects but omitting everything that makes sense. (Sorry, no diff, since I don't remember at which article this was.) But more often he tries to replace simple, straightforward definitions with incomprehensible pseudo-philosophical jargon that stress many irrelevancies and obscure the main point. E.g. according to Gregbard, a theorem isn't so much "a statement, proved on the basis of...", but rather "an idea, concept or abstraction instances of which are formed using a string of symbols...".
 * Since Gregbard believes he is right and everybody else is wrong, those who try to contain his nonsense (mostly professional mathematicians) naturally appear like a conspiracy of ignorants to him. This page is part of his quixotic battle. Thus it is a very personal document and doesn't belong in namespace. Hans Adler 07:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Disputed single author essays should be userfied.  Arthur Rubin's edits don't count.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on notability of author coining the word. Book reviewed in New York Times.  I can find no policy requiring essays to conform to what everyone else says, as that would seem to totally bar all interesting essays.  If we simply only allow majority opinions in essays, then we violate the core tenets of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your apparent premise that humorous definitions by notable philosophers automatically get the right to a Wikipedia space essay. Can we look forward to a similar essay for every entry in the Devil's Dictionary?
 * But here is what intrigues me more: So far Gregbard hasn't found a single editor who agreed with him on these things. Do you agree with him, or do you know someone who does? Initially I thought that there might be a few philosophers agreeing with him, but so far all those who got involved quickly got as angry about Gregbard's nonsense as the mathematicians. Hans Adler 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK -- the word is notable, right? WP requires that essays are noted as being by "one or more" -- clearly the basis is that essays by one person are, indeed, permitted - right?  Do I agree? No -- but that is also a point -- I strongly oppose making decisions on whether I "agree" or "disagree" with something.  And whether a person has a "majority opinion" or not.  Material which is uncivil is one matter. The case in pint, however, is not worded uncivilly, and therefore requires my support.   Ought all essays whoich are not "majority opinions" be removed? I hope not.   And, frankly, Bierce would get deleted on sight by some folks, but not by me.  Collect (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you got core tenets about essays from. They don't have to have general consensus but WP:POLICY says "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." If the essay has most people saying it is pointy and should be deleted then it outright contradicts widespread consensus.
 * The author of the word is notable and I'd have no problem with something about mathematosis in Quine's article based on what he wrote which was a humourous essay. All that's used here is the word. Wikipedia essays by the way do not need any sort of references for notability verifiability etc, that's for articles. Dmcq (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way essays that criticise Wikipedia are good and fine if written to further the goal of improving Wikipdia, that is in line with core policy. Essays designed to be used in personal attacks against other editors are altogether different. Dmcq (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy. Essay used for pointy attacks. Dmcq (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On whom is it a "personal attack"? Seems that it specifically avoids attacking any individuals at all -- hence is not an "attack page" by precedent.   Collect (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "This confusion results in a collective form of ownership by an in-group of editors whose belief is that they are protecting these articles from non-mathematicians." I wouldn't have called this a "personal attack", but it's a transparent attack on WP:WPM. Gregbard would like to use mathematics articles as his personal playground, where he can put all his latest ideas which he got while reading books related to logic in prominent position, while displacing, removing or obscuring the information that most readers are looking for. Hans Adler 13:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This from GregBard "Your belief that it is POV is consistent with mathematosis" with an earlier version by him as an article illustrates the sort of thing I'm talking about. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)So it is an attack on an unnamed group with some sort of common behaviour? How is that an attack? Recall that the essay must be judged on its own -- not on "I don't like its author" which is irrelevant. We do not decalre people anathema on WP that I know of, and certainly their essays do not then become subject to anathema. I can disagree with a person, and not desire to see them so treated, and certainly it is not a proper frame of reference for a deletion discussion . Look at what ArbCom has said about "personal attacks" "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. [42]. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly. Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC) " A personal attack is an attack on a person -- and this does not come within a mile. Note further that mentions of "cabals" and "groups" are found in many essays on WP (even by one person) and precedent is that such comments are not "attacks." (added after ec) and how is a comment in another place relevant to a reasoned discussion about deleting this essay? Outside disagreements should not be used in MfD. Collect (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What you were quoting was whether the text of personal attacks should in general be removed after the event, what has now turned into WP:RPA. This essay is the continuance of article that was moved here after being deleted by AfD. This is a Wikipedia essay not an article, the purpose of wikipedia space is to further the aim of producing an encyclopaedia, it is not part of the encyclopaedia proper. There is no requirement to keep personal attack vehicles. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)The claim was made that it "attacks" in some way. I showed that it is not an attack page. And showed that ArbCom has specifically stated a position on misue of policy on attacks. Now if an article if removed from mainspace it can not be an essay in project space? Pray - where is that a policy? So -- we have an editor who is loathed who creates an essay which "attacks" a vast unnamed group in some way so it can be deleted as an "attack page"? Seems you would prefer to delete editors -- the essay attacks no one. Absent a reason to delete the essay, other than reasons based on personalities, the defualt should be Keep. (added) I note you now refer to the essay as a "personal attack vehicle."  As it is not, the issue of dislike of an editor should not in any way be used as a rationale to delete his essay. Collect (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The remark by Gregbard that I gave above was about an editor Septentrionalis. It was a personal attack. I did not say an article cannot become an essay. That is why this is an MfD rather than a quick delete. And your quote was wrong as I pointed out and I reoeat, it referred to deleting the text of a personal attack after it has been made. Please read No personal attacks for the actual policy. Dmcq (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus the default is to keep. That's why one needs to set up a page like this to see if it is repugnant to the general consensus. If you think it is even a half way reasonable way to describe the editors of an article then by all means say you want it. Nobody's stopping you doing that and I believe you have put in a keep. Your grounds of notability doesn't apply for essays but I don't think that's going to worry anyone overmuch. You can even say strong keep if you think something like this is a good idea to have hanging around. Dmcq (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userify' - rude, incivil essay. No one believes this but the author. Hipocrite (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think calling this an attack is a bit much (not least because it gives entirely too much credit to the putative attacker). It's certainly WP:POINT, certainly part of a broader pattern of problematic editing (A template, an article and an essay? My goodness, we have been busy!), probably doesn't belong in WP namespace (But I'll defer to the consensus on that -- frankly I would prefer this sort of nonsense, which can be safely ignored, to actual damage to mathematics articles requiring time and effort of people who actually know what they're talking about to fix them and keep them fixed) but let's reserve terms like 'attack' and 'vandalism' for where they actually apply and not use them as rhetorical devices where "how silly" or "oh brother" will do just fine. 71.139.11.55 (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're right about that. When I wrote pointy attacks I didn't realize it would get taken as personal attack and I didn't mean to tread into that territory but I then went and responded. Very silly of me. I'll withdraw my statements about Gregbard on anything like that by striking them out. Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The essay is harmful to the project, and only leads to name-calling. For instance, "By !voting delete, User:Dmcq is clearly exhibiting signs of WP:Mathematosis."  Although the essay may refer to an unnamed group of editors, any attempt to use the essay in practice would inevitably lead to incivility, if not an outright personal attack.  From what I have seen at WT:WPM, this usage of the essay is precisely the creator's intention.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. The "attack" occurs when the personal attack is made. It is not part of the essay, and crystal balls about how anyone might use any essay (including WP:PUFF and the like are not valid reasons to delete. Collect (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me turn this around. Please explain how this essay could help the project.  The thread WT:WPM already indicates how this essay can be used destructively, by back and forth accusations of "mathematosis", leading to the escalation of conflict.  I see no evidence that the essay will ever be used in a positive fashion, since every instance in which the term has been used in a dispute with another editor has been confrontational and nasty.  Please prove me wrong.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Um -- so anything which might possibly be a problem therefore ought to be deleted? I did not find that on any list of normal reasons for deletion, to be sure.  If one were affronted by this, the best course would be to ignore it, as this discussion is generating more readers than it would otherwise have garnered in a year.  But pre-emptive deletion? That would encompass a vast array of pages!   Sorry -- I do not take it as a reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your reply is a red herring. I was not arguing that it should be deleted preemptively, but that it should be deleted because, based on empirical data, the essay in question is bad for the project.  Every instance where this term has been used on Wikipedia in a content dispute was a violation of WP:CIVIL.  Again, please see the thread I referenced above, as well as the deletion discussion Articles for deletion/Mathematosis and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mathematosis.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What, precisely, is the empirical data you have?  And AfD reasons for deletion are not specifically valid in MfD.   The AfD could easily have been closed as "merge" from what I read there -- and the official reason for deletion was "lack of sourcing" and no mention of WP:CIVIL was made at all.  The closest thing to incivility was "Regardless. I'm done with this anyway, engaging with Greg on any level is about as fruitful as shining a penlight into a black hole 71.139.11.9 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "    I looked at every single link to this essay -- and found no use violating WP:CIVIL .   Perhaps you can give me a single cite where this essay was used to violate any policy?    This sounds a great deal more like "I don't like the author" than anything else. Collect (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just go to WT:WPM and look for all instances of the word mathematosis. What is interesting there is that Pmanderson is right about Gregbard showing some of the symptoms. But perhaps we can end this discussion now and simply agree to disagree? Or continue on the talk page, if continue we must? I am sorry I started this by responding to you. I didn't intend to disrupt this AfD. Hans Adler 21:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. This is not the AfD. 2. The AfD did not raise this issue. 3. It might have been a real issue if it had been raised before. It was not raised. 4. This essay has not been so used in any place. 5. I find 45 hits in books. 6. "Mathematosis" has 7 hits in userspace. Two of which were logs of new pages, and none of which appeared in any way to be uncivil.   It is not found in any article or article talk pages.  In project space I found no uncivil use either.  In short, I searched high and low on WP and did not find the horrid attack being attributed to the word, and still less to this essay.  7.  The TfD was based on "neologism" though the nom said it was "arrogant" which does not really qualify as a reason for deletion.  As far as I can tell, the concensus was that the cleanup-jargon template sufficed.  So what we have more than ever is what appears to be personal dislike of a grumpy editor. Sorry - that is not a valid reason for deletion. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was you who brought up the business of personal attack. As to mathematosis being liable to being taken as insulting may I quote Gregbard himself, when described as suffering from mathematosis he said 'Well actually yes you are very insulting'. As to finding everything I deleted two instances where references to this essay had been inserted into Wikipedia policies. You seem to keep changing your grounds and quoting policies without saying where the policies you quote are written down. May I suggest you give actual policy or guideline references or just give your reasons in your own words, support does not have to be based on policies or guidelines, they don't cover everything and the good of wikipedia trumps most anything else. Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Collect, you're missing the point. No one is suggesting that we delete all essays expressing minority viewpoints. What Gregbard expresses in this essay is not a minority viewpoint. Rather, it's a fringe viewpoint – that is, it goes directly against consensus, as Gregbard is the only user who supports it. As I wrote above, WP:PG states that "essays...that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace." This one contradicts widespread consensus, as shown at AfD and TfD previously; therefore, it should at the very least be userfied. That is the core issue here, not whether or not the term "mathematosis" is notable or whether this counts as an attack page or not. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet that is not the rationale given at the outset. The AfD and TfD discussions did not make such a consensus claim at all.  In fact, the primary claims on AfD were the notability and neologism arguments.  I was told to search WP and that I would find this used for attacking -- I found no such case in an assiduous search. Now I am told that an essay with a "frince viewpoint" is deletable for that reason ... and as for "disconsensus" being a novel reason for deletion when that was not even suggested at the start -- sounds more like an editor problem than an essay problem.  And, indeed, delete !votes in NfD should be based on policies and guidelines.   Now one editor seems not to realize the first use of "personal attack" on this page appears to have been at 13:40 on 17 Nov. I referred to ut un my reply six minutes later.  Any editor who says it was I who first used those words should look at the time-stamps. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay sorry I was the first one to say that and I have now struck that out as well. If you are unable to see that when people say something is insulting then it raises questions of civility I don't know what will count. If you are saying people should base their decisions on an Mfd on policies and guidelines then please give references to where it says that. Please desist from saying things as if they are in policies and guidelines without giving any references. Different editors are entitled to give their own different reasons. Dmcq (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) The arguments at AfD and TfD were different because for other namespaces there are other rules. I told you where you can find examples for personal attacks: By going to WT:WPM and searching for "mathematosis" on the page. The first two hits are two instances, one against Gregbard and one by Gregbard. They don't link to Gregbard's article, template or essay of this name, but only because everybody who was involved was aware of at least the article, and they all serve the common purpose of pushing a certain meme about WPM. Hans Adler 01:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, please read my comments here more carefully. I never asserted that expressing a fringe point of view was grounds for deletion of an essay. Rather, I said that according to Wikipedia policy, it's grounds for moving that essay to the author's userspace. I said that this should be deleted only if consensus is that it violates WP:POINT as well; since I feel that it does, I support deletion. Userfying is the more likely outcome, however. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Author has the right to express his own opinions about WP-related issues in an essay that doesn't attack any specific editors, so I'm opposed to deleting this outright. But it is evident that it doesn't have enough support to stay in the Wikipedia namespace. --RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as inappropriate and unhelpful to the project, Userfy if the author so requests. Ray  Talk 23:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep you boors! Why should WP:Zombie be "Cabal approved", yet this page deleted? Because it offends your high opinion of yourselves and the pages you administer? I remind everyone here that it has long been known that the mathematics pages on this site border on farce and at times resemble their own satire. People come to the mathematics pages looking for answers and they come away confused with even more questions. As near as I can tell Mathematosis adequately sums up the reason for this shocking state of affairs. Edit the page if you must, but if you want to see real improvement in the dreadful state of the mathematics articles around here then you had best keep this page around for future reference.
 * Sadly, I'm fairly sure that none of you will understand what I'm talking about here. But that's what happens to closed communities I suppose. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a point of information, I really doubt the cabal have an opinion as this matter doesn't touch on, say large cardinals or projective determinacy. And, while your point (if I can attempt to extract one from your screed) that the project's coverage of mathematics could stand to be improved and made more accessible to non-mathematicians might be valid, I defy you to show how this essay is the way to do it. 71.139.11.55 (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the above post was intended as sarcasm. At any rate, it shouldn't be taken seriously (referencing two humor pieces as though they were serious is a clue).  But I'm not sure what conclusion, if any, was actually intended.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was not blunt enough. The WP:Zombie essay is a satire. This essay is a satire. The WP:Zombie essay is intended to highlight problems with the editing of articles on the site. This essay is intended highlight problems with the editing of mathematical articles on the site. The WP:Zombie essay has a useful role to play in bettering the site. This essay has a useful role to play in bettering the site.
 * At times, the level of inanity around here beggars belief. The mathematics articles on this site are bad and frankly are getting worse. For example, did you know that the the List of trigonometric identities page discusses haversines and infinite sums of cosines and before introducing the formula for the sum of two cosines. The reason for this is that the mathematics editors around here lack common sense. Mathematoisis explains this as well as any reasons I have ever heard.
 * It has become clear to me that the majority of gatekeepers on mathematics articles on Wikipedia are not interested in providing useful and informative articles for readers. They are interested in creating exactingly correct, sophistic monstrosities of use to absolutely no-one. Pokemon and webcomics were long since moved off to their own wikis, but the mystique of mathematics has allowed bric-a-brac like hacoversine to linger unmolested on pages intended for the general reader. The damage that is being done to mathematics, present and future, by such pages is probably greater that I'd care to contemplate.
 * So, to be frank, you are all appalling custodians of the mathematics articles. This essay was trying, in some small way, to make you aware of this fact. Evidently, it has failed to do so, and you have disgraced yourselves yet again by voting for its deletion. I hope my point is now clear; but considering I am speaking with people who are evidently satisfied with the state of mathematics on Wikipedia, I rather doubt you have the foggiest notion of what I'm talking about.ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may (and it indeed may) I say again: how does this essay work to address the problem? And at the risk of discussing the editor and not the contribution, I maintain that The Author's contributions generally to mathematics articles are a pole-vault in the wrong direction. This essay is perhaps a result of The Author being told as much by people who do, I'm sorry but there's no way around it, know better. Making mathematics at WP better or more accessible cannot include making it incorrect. 71.139.11.55 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Manifestly incivil rants like the above appear to make the case against this essay even stronger. As a regular mathematics editor, it's difficult not to take these accusations personally.  I don't know enough about Wikiquette to say, but I suspect that such a post would be considered extremely inappropriate, maybe even sanctionable.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing that gets me is that when I did some work on the start of exponential function to try and explain what it was in aid of ObsessiveMathsFreak wanted to remove anything like that and jump straight into a series definition. They seem to think one should just have formulae and that everything should be logically derived in order instead of explaining where one is going - that they say is 'hopelessly circular'. You can see the conversation on the article's talk page. So I would suggest different people can have very different ideas of what a useful and informative article should look like. Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be quite happy with a humorous essay called mathematosis which did Quine's essay some credit. In fact I wouldn't mind having a userbox like that. I most certainly don't want one based on this essay though! Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep -- I have participated in several deletion debates, but never for an essay. The way I see it essays should almost never be deleted in principle. So this MFD is disturbing just on a purely principled level. The majority rules, but the minority has the right to try to become the majority. This is just a fundamental especially in a collaborative environment based on civil discourse.


 * I do not throw around the term "fascism" casually in a debate, for obvious rhetorical reasons. However, I cannot see this as anything other than forced suppression of opposition by the majority which it criticizes. Is it fair to have a group of mathematicians alone determine the fate of an essay criticizing them and their ways? I say it needs broader consideration.


 * Criticism is how we make a better society and a better Wikipedia. However, this also requires mature adults committed to the greater picture: building the content of a publicly edited encyclopedia. There is nothing uncivil about this essay. However if you are very prideful, you may see it that way. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Gregbard, as a user who has no personal stake in this essay or any articles that have to due with mathematics, I agree with your points about the necessity of criticism in Wikipedia. But your essay is not mere criticism; it is part of your scheme to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, using an article, a template, and an essay. You, the creator of this essay, were adding "mathematosis" tags to articles, thus linking editors/readers to this essay. That's not to say that any of the articles were perfect – but you should have been tagging for problems that conflicted with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not with an essay that you yourself wrote! That's WP:POINT, is it not?


 * Even if we were to ignore that reason for deletion, there would at least be a strong case for userfying the essay. Again, there's nothing wrong with voicing a minority viewpoint; it's the fringe viewpoints that are the problem. Yours, frankly, is a fringe viewpoint – that is, it goes directly against consensus, as you are the only user who supports it. As I wrote above, WP:PG states that "essays...that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace." So at the very least this should be userfied.


 * I didn't expect you to support the deletion of your own essay, but I was hoping you'd at least acknowledge that policy supports userfication in this case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No I do not agree that WP:POINT applies AT ALL in this case because POINT only applies in the article mainspace. Furthermore there is nothing "being disrupted" AT ALL (these editors personal annoyance and great offense is their choice, not some emergency as they portray). I do not agree that my position is a "fringe position" IN THE LEAST, although it may be on Wikipedia where there are 20 mathematicians for every philosopher. (Mathematicians v Philosophers). I am certainly very happy to communicate with someone who has 'no personal stake in any articles that have to due with mathematics.' I am hoping that you and others like you will prevail as a moderating voice of reason. This is an issue of interdisciplinary coverage and if the political climate on WP was different we would be naming a lot of these mathematics editors as chronic persistent vandals. They remove subject matter calling it POV, and the contributions are lost forever.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT is a behavioural guideline, not a content guideline. It is not limited to article content. If the annoyance in peoples mind is just a construct of their minds please try to apply that to yourself and be content and happy. Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy. No way this belongs in the main namespace Little Professor (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.