User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Hewitt transwikis

re: transwiki templates at scientific community metaphor, actor_model_and_process_calculi and maybe others.

I think if those articles don't have enough neutrality and already-extant reliable sourcing for wikipedia, then they shouldn't be on wikibooks either. arxiv.org might be a better venue for writings of that type, and is far better when new research is involved. Maybe someone could suggest it to Dr Hewitt. 75.62.4.229 08:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution steps

Regarding this, is there any particular reason you didn't tell me about the ANI thread? This seems to be a test case for establishing principles, which I accept, but it's bizarre to be taken to ArbCom without some contact about the second ANI thread first. Was it simply an oversight? Respectfully, chaser - t 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may, having followed the thread and subsequent case, Charles initially contacted Adam (the blocking admin) by e-mail, and wanted to deal with the matter there and then between them. Adam said he wanted further discussion, and asked Charles to bring it up on the noticeboard. Charles (effectively) said they could and should deal with it there and then between them, on e-mail. The upshot was that Adam opened the ANI thread. Someone should have contacted you, but as Adam was the one that wanted the further discussion, I think he should have contacted you. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 14:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Need Assistance at MyMobility

Hi,

I found your name on the Wikipedia List of Admins page. I need some assistance in resolving what I believe is harassment over at the MyMobility article. I created the article this afternoon, and in the same minute it was marked for speedy deletion by user User:Fredrick day. I added the {{hangon}} tag and explained on the talk page of that article that I was in the process of writing the article still, and I would therefore prove its notoriety. The speedy deletion tag was replaced with {{prod}} and I was told that I had five days to make "bring it up to scratch." This I accepted and proceeded to add some content. Still not done with the article, I decided I would come back to it later. The same user removed content from the article because in his words it did not prove notoriety of the subject. I added the content back, and it was removed again. I really need some help in dealing with this situation. I believe this user:

• is being far too over-zealous in his enforcement of policy,
• as far as I can see is not an admin, and
• is attempting to sabotage the article at all costs.

What can I do about the situation? Your help would be deeply appreciated! --GrahamDo (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in all honesty, if there aren't good independent references, this article is unlikely to make the cut in the longer term. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the criteria that will be applied. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. It's a work in progress. Perhaps my biggest mistake was creating it from the start in the "live" namespace and not in a sandbox on my talk page. You live and learn. Thanks for your response! --GrahamDo (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article could be "userfied" (moved back into your userspace). Charles Matthews (talk) 07:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

citation

the article on natural law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#_note-0)referenes a footnote (1) to a partial citation: "Natural Law," International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences." Would you happen to know the information necessary for the full citation? I would really appreciate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.15.128 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The citation is actually given below the footnotes; it says it's to ""Natural Law." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York, 1968.". Presumably that would be this, then. -- phoebe/(talk) 08:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ore condition

Hi! I'm going to correct that page. Please, do not revert my edition before you've considered my explanation on Talk:Ore condition :-) !--JoergenB (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility Reminder

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

You've called me a "dog" among other things. Would you please refactor those remarks. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Please see this WP:AE discussion regarding an ArbCom in which you sat on the committee: WP:AE#Darwinek and breach of standard civility parole. Please be reassured that I will answer and all questions, to clarify the question brought up of my character in the matter, something which I insist on in coming to proper closure of the matter. Charles 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hello Charles. I hope you had a good Christmas and wish you all the best for the coming year. I noticed that you had Agnes Mure Mackenzie on one of your to-do lists. I've started a little article on her and will do something on her novels and historical works, but I'm not sure I can say anything about her Episcopalian significance. If there's anything you can add, please do leap right in! Very best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There would have been some connection to Edwin Muir, I think. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data)

An editor has nominated Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Charles. Good to see you back, and Happy New Year. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still busy in another direction, but it was good to post some of the stuff I had written offline. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings of the season!

Hi, echo that sentiment, glad to see you're back. Have a silly wee picture from the fairly frozen north! .. dave souza, talk 13:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see you have returned. Happy editing!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup

Hi I posted the suggestion that we should have a London Wikipedia meetup next week here. Would be cool if we could get some people together. I was thinking either a social meet or maybe a collaboration meetup where we bring a selected London article up to GA or even FA status. Poeloq (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the London articles, and don't bother asking me to further London meetings if you're going to take the same take-it-or-leave it attitude. Nothing I can do about it, but I went to the first-ever Wikipedia meet-up, in 2004, in London. It saddens me that such a cliquey, London-only, unWikipedian attitude can come to prevail in 2008. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "Dual Entente"

I have nominated "Dual Entente" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "Dubrow's Cafeteria"

I have nominated "Dubrow's Cafeteria" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Galtelli and Nuoro

Yeah I guess they are the same - there are probably still a few like that on the list. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Echo and The Bunnymen,

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Echo and The Bunnymen,, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Echo and The Bunnymen, is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Echo and The Bunnymen,, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Diocese of Foligno

I have nominated Diocese of Foligno, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diocese of Foligno. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You have explained nothing. Your entire nomination reads "non-notable". Did you consult Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy? Charles Matthews (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kruidvat

Please provide an explanation for your "keep" in this AfD -- AfD is a consensus, not a vote, so just saying "keep" with no reason why is invalid. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dioceses

I see they changed the categories then per my proposal. How are you anyway? I;ve commented at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diocese of Foligno. Waste of time isn't it when it is obvious it is encyclopedic material ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK, just busy with writing the book I'm on. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you got a moment could you think about rewriting and adding references to Philip II of Spain. I tagged it ages ago and still nobody has improved it. It is awful to read ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 12:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of Italy is down to only 85 redlinks. But I may be a while yet. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating speedy deletion postings

1. I didn't see the history when I issued the CSD as I use Twinkle.
2. I'd already seen the previously created article.
3. The previous upper case named version of the same article (same text) had already been speedied.
4. Before you lecture me perhaps you admins should get things organised so that you are all working off the same page.

Thank you for notifying me. --WebHamster 13:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are 1400+ admins. I was politely asking you not to do the same again. Please note that the responsibility for the correct use of any automated tool on Wikipedia lies with the user. There are far too many cases of thoughtless use of Twinkle.

A further point is that any title in upper case should be moved before any deletion nomination is made. That can show up important backlinks. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It wasn't thoughtless. I knew exactly what I was doing. Now that we both have the advantage of hindsight it appears that it wasn't me second-guessing your decision. You were second-guessing Rudget's. You see when I know an identical article has already been deleted under CSD I tend to think it reasonable to do the same thing. Wouldn't you? --WebHamster 13:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are continuing with the line that running a car manufacturer isn't prima facie evidence of notability? In 2005, revenues for Ford's Canadian operations were $13.8 billion, making Ford of Canada one of the country's largest privately held companies.[1] Charles Matthews (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So have a look at William H. Osborne now. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Diocese of Pergola

Ok, I'm not even sure where I got that one from...if you see any mistakes you are free to remove them, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardy-Littlewood circle method typo?

The penultimate paragraph starts (my emphasis):

In the later, exponential sum formulation f(z) is replaced by a finite Fourier series [...]

In the context of the article, I think that might be intended to be either "In later usage" (ie in more modern usage) or "In the latter" (ie in the case of the partition function, mentioned at the end of the preceding paragraph).

This wording is unchanged from your first version of the page:

[16:28, 18 February 2005] Charles Matthews (initial page).

so I thought best to ask you direct - can you remember or work out what the intended wording is? Hv (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Later. It was basically I. M. Vinogradov's method. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So would it be accurate to replace the whole sentence with:

Later, I. M. Vinogradov extended the technique, replacing the exponential sum formulation f(z) with a finite Fourier series so that the relevant integral I_n is a Fourier coefficient.

? Hv (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I can give you a citation. Vinogradov applied finite sums to Waring's problem in 1926, and the general trigometric sum method became known as "the circle method of Hardy, Littlewood and Ramanujan, in the form of Vinogradov's trigonometric sums"; found on pp. 387-8 of K. K. Mardzhanishvili, Ivan Matveevich Vinogradov : a brief outline of his life and works, in I. M. Vinogradov, Selected works (Berlin, 1985). Charles Matthews (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've stolen that verbatim. Hv (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Nicolas Psaume, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12544a.htm. As a copyright violation, Nicolas Psaume appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Nicolas Psaume has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Nicolas Psaume and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Nicolas Psaume with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Nicolas Psaume.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Cagey Millipede (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the link, it comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, and so is public domain text. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The link http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12544a.htm clearly states "Copyright © 2007 by Kevin Knight (EMAIL). Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Hosted by Trinity Consulting."

Slow down. The book is published in 1913, so that assertion is discounted. Please note that we have a large project for incorporating all this material into Wikipedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of speedy deletion on pages that you have created

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. [3] Cagey Millipede (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I know the rules. Please read the message above. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the rules then. If you're right, the article will be saved. "Copyright © 2007 by Kevin Knight" Cagey Millipede (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I ask that you please restore the db tag, along with a {{hangon}} if you so choose, and let a disinterested admin look at this. Cagey Millipede (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Common sense says I take it down. Please read what it says at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Catholic. The page should have carried {{Catholic}}, but didn't. I have created some hundreds of these pages, and sometimes I forget. You can read about the CE at Catholic Encyclopedia. Kevin Knight's role is mentioned there, but the copyright doesn't run to the text of the page. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A tempest in a teapot no doubt, but my common sense does not allow me to reconcile a copyright claim with a public domain claim. As the original contributor, you should have let a different admin handle the removal of the speedy delete, while you added the {{catholic}} and {{hangon}} templates in my opinion. My guess is you would have prevailed anyway, but I am no copyright expert. Cagey Millipede (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for just this type of situation. It is designed to allow me to explain to you, in a more tranquil atmosphere, because the formalities are not supposed to get in the way of that. Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics explains what is going on here. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Speech and Reality

Dear Charles Matthews, Thank you for your interest in Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy and Speech and Reality. I note that you added a link for Ferdinand Ebner, which is currently dead. Do you anticipate an article on Ebner or is there some other reason for adding the link? I note that there is an article at de.wikipedia.org that could be translated. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, adding red links is a routine operation. My immediate reason for looking at Ebner is that his name is on various subpages of mine, as you can see by looking at what links there. It seems there should be an article. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

When I searched on "Ferdinand Ebner" I didn't find anything in the first entries. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "see by looking at what links there." I could, of course link to de.wikipedia.org Ferdinand Ebner, but that wouldn't help non-German speakers. Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you click on Ferdinand Ebner, you get a page where it offers you a chance to see what (potentially) links to the page. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Empire of Japan (foreign commerce and shipping)

I see you have a history of working on the article Empire of Japan (foreign commerce and shipping). I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. Jeepday (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Empire of Japan (internal politics 1914-1944)

I see you have a history of working on the article Empire of Japan (internal politics 1914-1944). I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. Jeepday (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are somewhat misusing the term "verifiability" there, in my view. Just about any general history of Japan from the period would enable someone to verify most of the major facts, because this is a general survey piece. Also, when you speak of notability in this context, you are losing me. Internal politics in Japan in the period is one of the obviously notable topics in the history of the twentieth century - since notability is at the topic level, I see no case to answer. I entirely agree that there should be references, of course. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Charles - can you come over to the Mark Steyn page?

There's some blatant vandalism going on.David r from meth productions (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - I see you've reverted User:Lobojo. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

List of network management systems

Thanks for your question. Yes, this could be converted into a category but it's much easier to watch a list than a category, so if Popperian is worried about spam, over time he'll see more of it on a category page. Anyone can write a spam article then categorize it and it will quietly appear on a category page without appearing on any watchlists. As it stands, several people every so often go in and purge the list of of external links and red-links. Bogus entries on this list are also useful pointers to spam links and spam articles elsewhere on Wikipedia.

You can find a history of much of the disputes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive357#Popperian (talk · contribs). You'll also want to check out 66.23.224.223 (talk · contribs · count).

In response to Popperian's initial complaints, I spent many hours going over the list, entry by entry, checking items for notability. I posted an extensive discussion at Talk:List of network management systems. Although he was appreciative of my efforts, this work did not assuage Popperian's fundamental concerns. He seems to either misunderstand or disagree with our concept of notability and its use as a cut-off for articles and lists.

Sadly, the more Popperian pitches a fuss, the more of a virtual paper trail he creates around here for Google to spot.
--A. B. ^(talk) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PS, You may wish to pose the same question about this list to Gorgan almighty. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your efforts to spam-fight for us. I'm certainly telling him the tale on counter-productive things. I wanted to balance that by looking seriously at such points he raises that seem to have merit. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Cardinal Archetti

My dear Chhrles, I thank you for reading my work, it is great to find that one has read thoroughly this article.The catholic subject is not so simple and the link you have created will be blank for ever, because the titular bishop or archbishop is a bishop, who is asigned to a fictional diocese. You cannot write anything for something that doesn't exist at all. The titular bishops of a titular diocese have absolutely nothing common and if there is any relation,it is occasional and not important. The titular bishop is serving in other dioceses as auxiliary bishop, assisting the bishop asigned to the diocese, if it is large or with high number of parishes,usually,or in the Roman Curia as head of a dicastery or as an apostolic nuncio in foreign country. Good day to you and thank you again.Drjmarkov (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at Category:Titular sees, you will notice that we have many such articles. I create them myself, sometimes. There is information about the sees, for example on the Catholic Hierarchy site. So it is not correct, that no such article can be written. In fact, where a diocese existed in the past and has become titular, it is logical to write such an article, including the known history of the old diocese. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In particular, there is information here; and there is already an article Bishop of Chalcedon, which explains the meaning of the title in the seventeenth century. So there is definitely an article to be written here. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In particular,the information about this titular see is not important in general and only two of the bishops are from England. I am sorry to find that such articles exist and I plan to put all of them for discussion in the Catholicism project. The Catholic Hierarchy site is giving enough information about them, I think. This is the idea of the titular sees. I agree that, if there is some information about the history of the see, it has its place,but in general there is no rule in the appointments of the titular bishops- many times archbishops ad personam were asigned to titular dioceses,and more of the titular archdioces are vacant nowadays. Drjmarkov (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion, then. Wikipedia's policy is that articles may be started about notable topics, where there is good information available. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles Matthews/New - other2

What's the purpose of that list?? Just curious!! Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a braglist, so-called. I use "related changes" on it, since my watchlist is very big. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, I'll have to try and start editing some of the articles on them.... I edit just about anything I can here! Good page, though!!

Ta, --Solumeiras (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

Hello. Howjado means cattle in Slavic languages and same user, who created many sock accounts, bombed articles about several real Polish villages with this kind of vandalism. Dziecinów is a real village. - Darwinek (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Double redirects

My apologies. Not my intent to cause more problems for others, I've just been cleaning up the links throughout. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to talk to you about that. You have been piping links, and I don't see the need, in those cases. It's an obvious point: by creating a redirect once only, the link can go where intended every time. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that the blocks on User:MatthewHoffman were unjustified. It also states that Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad group prod (fixed)

I added a proposed deletion template to the article Bad group, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. The concerns are mostly that the article is less than a dictionary definition after about four years. Feel free to remove the prod. If this article interests you, it could definitely use expansion (as you mentioned, connected group is undefined, and the article is unreferenced with no context). Certainly more should be said than an unreferenced partial definition, but my quick read through google's results showed it would be hard to do more than this. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

REB fixed this by making it a redirect to the conjecture that they don't exist. JackSchmidt (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Valentin Asmus

Charles, I am working my way around wikipedia and have been trying to learn appropriate skills. I changed the cites in your Valentin Asmus based on my reading of WP:CIT. Just this morning I came across Citation Templates and read "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." If I have overstepped, then please accept my apologies and correct or revert the article as you see fit. Regards, Kevin. --Daddy.twins (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing I very much dislike is inversion of names. People should understand that Wikipedia is a database; databases are about searching; and inverting names to put a surname first doubles seaching time. Also Wikipedia is hypertext; hypertext is about internal links; and inverting names makes linking harder. Therefore, since citation templates usually take the line that inverting names is either cool, or forced by some academic referencing convention devised long ago, I often find their application to be based on low understanding of what we do here, or false analogies with writing an academic paper. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Domingo Báñez

Thnaks for creating this article. I'd been meaning to do so for some time. StAnselm (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it's just an adaptation of the old Catholic Encyclopedia article, it still needs plenty of work. It launches into some general discussions that should probably be looked at. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia holds its critics hostage

hi i created account visitor876 to let you guys know that threats of violence published on wikipedia review then they remove my comments on administrators noticeboard and block my account and i demanded to talk to arbitrator since wikipedia review say violent threats received by arbitrator but they did not let me talk to arbitrator they gave me link but protected my talk page how i supposed to contact arbitrator while blocked so i created new account why they hiding fact that wikipedian threatened wikipedia reviewer with violence it is just like wikipedia review say wikipedia holds its critics hostage you are arbitrator plaese back me up http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16053 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest934 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Slow down. You have no evidence that any real Wikipedian threatened anyone. I have no idea of who you are, or what your standing is here. But you can mail me from my User page. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

talk to other arbitrators if you do not believe me wikipedia review say one of them received email threatening to chop off wikipedia reviewers fingers from anonymous wikipedian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest934 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I said slow down. That means proper typing, not lower case without punctuation. Sign your posts. The ArbCom has been informed of this matter for some time. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my english bad and no one here to help me now. Is this better. So you can confimer i am not trolling. Please let this matter be posted on administrators noticeboard so that world can know. Guest934 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What has this to do with the Adminstrators' Noticeboard? It is not about onsite activity. The matter is being discussed on the wikien mailing list. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why they not let me talk to you. Again they blocked my account and protected my talk page. Why can i not talk to arbitrators. More eyes better. World should know. Administrators noticeboard get many eyes. George herbert say armed blowfish does not want world to know but then they stop me from talking to George herbert so i cannot ask why if armed blowfish does not want world it know why is it on wikipedia review. Where is wikien mailing list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest385 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Trying to keep this in one place... Somey, the person who runs Wikipedia Review, posted a slightly redacted version of emails sent to him which had threats to AB in them. His posting contains his reasoning for making them public - as far as I know, AB did not ask him to publicize them, but you can ask over on Wikipedia Review.

There's not much we can do here on Wikipedia about it directly. The emails were sent from Gmail, to Gmail, without going through Wikipedia. There's no identifying information on Wikipedia about the emails or who sent them. There was, as far as we know, no stalking on Wikipedia that preceded the emails.

If there were actions on the Wikipedia wiki that were directly related you bet we'd be dealing with it. But as far as we (I, at least) know there weren't any.

In terms of what AB wants public and not, they could post to the Wikipedia Review thread if they want. If they want us to make what we know more public then they can ask us directly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So everything under control. Thank for your time. Guest385 (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Somey say I was actually a little surprised that she wanted me to post all this stuff, to be honest, not leastwise because this will all probably end up in the ED article too eventually. (Hard to say with them!) I think it was mostly a case of "we told you we'd do it if you didn't go away," and since the person (arguably) didn't go away, there was at least nothing to lose by trying it. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16053&pid=81796&st=40&entry81796 Guest385 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hugh MacCawell

Sorry, I thought it was just somebody trying to account for a typo. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Yugoslav poets

Category:Yugoslav poets, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adam Franz Lennig, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Nomination for Ralph of Longchamp

A tag has been placed on Ralph of Longchamp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), 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 an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia 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. AlmightyClam 16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I declined it, of course, & I think the refs are adequate as they are. DGG (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. Hugh MacCaghwell

Mr. Matthews I am fairly new around here and I'm not that familiar even with the basics, but I see your a lot more experienced than I am, so I trust you'll know better on this. Kind regards Vergency (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The real point, for me, is that "References" sections have a somewhat uncomfortable status, now that inline referencing is generally preferred. I tend to use them one way, for conventional paper references. You will no doubt find other theories. It is one of those cases where switching reference styles around is hardly worth it, unless some item is clearly misplaced. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Latin America

Any chance you could venture outside of Europe and try to fill in some coverage in South American countries? List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of Brazil -plenty of red links to eat up. One obstacle might be available info ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I know - 250 dioceses in Brazil. But I'm not really attracted. There are around 100 historic Italian ones left to do, as it is. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

• ...that Vaux-de-Cernay Abbey in Ile-de-France(pictured), founded in 1118, had a saintly abbot, was bought be a Rothschild and is now a hotel? by Charles Matthews I found a picture and some more modern refs. OK? Victuallers (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice requested on possible Administrator misconduct

I would like to ask you, as an arbitrator, what to do about a situation that may involve misuse of power by an administrator. There is some urgency, since we are in the third day of a debate about a nomination for deletion of an article, and this administrator has, after making completely unfounded accusations of "bad faith", taken an extremely aggressive, partisan role in the debate, and announced that he was the administrator who had terminated a previous debate about deletion of the same article. The implication was that: his opinion is the deciding factor, and so if the nominator for deletion, who is myself, is at variance with it, he can expect to be overruled in the outcome.

It seems to me that such an overt declaration of non-neutrality, and attempt to influence the outcome by suggesting that his status of administrator gives him the last word should a priori be grounds for ruling him ineligible to act as administrator for this case.

Since he has also made several aggressive edits, deleting legitimate parts of contributions by other users, or subtly tagging them in derisive ways that are, presumably, available only to administrators, it is hard to see how the debate can continue and reach a conclusion in a reasonable neutral atmosphere. The curious thing is, all the other participants so far, whether they agreed or disagreed with each other, have been communicating with exemplary courtesy, and responding very appropriately to each other's remarks. (e.g., providing relevant evidence of assertions they make, etc.) The very first time in the debate that aggressive, or insulting language was introduced was when this administrator began to attack me, as nominator for deletion of what I considered to be a very innappropriate article, with a completely groundless accusation of "bad faith". He produced no actual evidence for this, (which is not surprising, since there was nothing that could remotely be characterized as "bad faith"), but continued to accuse, in his repeated contributions, in an extremely hostile tone, and to attack not only me but apparently all other users who were of the same opinion that the article needed to be deleted.

My concerns at this moment about what he may do next are two-fold:

1) I am worried that he may delete, in an irretrievable fashion, or alter, relevant parts of the exchange between us, in which he "drew the ace" of declaring himself to have been the administrator who previously had ended the previous debate for deletion of this article (which I knew nothing about, and had not been involved in). I told him that by doing this, and evidently intending his statement as an intimidation technique, since the implicit suggestion was that he could do the same this time, he had disqualified himself from acting as a neutral party with regard to this discussion, and he should declare himself no longer eligible to intervene or conclude the debate as an administrator. 2) I am worried that, in view of the very aggreessively one-sided position he has taken, that the entire debate will have been made into a sham, since it is a foregone conclusion that he alone will decide the outcome, regardless of what arguments may be presented in favour of deletion, or what the consensus appears to be.

Only two days remains for this debate, and, after what he has already said and done, I have no confidence whatsoever that this can lead to a balanced conclusion if he remains involved. In fact, I would not be surprised if he went even further in his partisan role, and just either declared the debate, prematurely, to be over, with him deciding the conclusion, or possible, waiting for the necessary five days to elapse, but with a foregone conclusion about the outcome, since he has made clear how he intends to decide it.

Since the article is on a scientific matter, in which several well qualified experts have registered an opinion - all in favor of deletion - while this administrator has, it seems, no pertinent expertise - and even declared himself hostile to the very idea of "expert" input, I see no way for this to conclude appropriately if he is permitted to continue participating, and ruling on the outcome.

I have kept a record of the last version of the exchanges, including his intimidating, hostile remarks, and in case my suspicion turns out to be correct, and some relevant part of the record is inapproprately deleted, will be happy to provide you with a copy, so you may see what has been stated.

In the meanwhile, if the record of this ongoing debate still remains intact, the article that is being considered for deletion is: "Myrzakulov Equations" and you can of course see it by connecting to the appropriate link. If this administrator has not as yet deleted the relevant parts, you may see for yourself what has been stated within the past few hours.

To me, as a recent user, if this is the nature of Wkipdia interactions, and the typical conduct of the admistrators, I will want nothing further to do with it in future. I am hoping that by appealing to you as an arbitrator, something might still be done to rescue the situation, which I frankly consider to be quite reprehensible.

I would greatly appreciate knowing what might be done in this situation. I have little past experience with Wikipedia, and find this episode very surprising, and disappointing. R_Physicist (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Some comments - I have also voted in the debate. It is a mistake in principle to argue from some basis that simply speaks to who might have created the article. The main point at issue is whether this topic is worth a Wikipedia article. If it is not worth an article, then there is still the issue of whether it could be treated as a small section of a larger article covering the field. In other words, if your main point is the specialized nature of the topic, please note that merging into another article or redirection of the title may be appropriate; and that page moves can change titles. To the extent that I understand the topic, I note that Landau-Lifshitz equation has no article. Something should be done about that, to improve the situation, in my view. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more comments for R_Physicist. Administrators can do some things that ordinary users cannot do, like closing deletion debates (that is, deciding on the conclusion) and deleting stuff. However, they are not allowed to do this for debates they participated in themselves. Deletions are not permanent, but can be undone by any other administrator; there are about a thousand of them. I can understand your worries that this administrator you speak of uses the special administrators' tools in a partisan way, but it will cause him/her quite some trouble.

I don't know what you're referring to with "subtly tagging them in derisive ways", but all tags I can think of at the moment can be added by any user, whether they are administrators or not. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the helpful comments. In reply to C.M. I agree that the Landau-Lifschitz equation, which is a well-known example of an integrable system of PDE's with applications to ferromagnetism, deserves an article of its own. It is treated in a number of standard textbooks. But the specialized nature of the topic suggests that it would not merit more than a two-three paragraph discussion, since it is only one of a fairly long list of equations that belong to the category of "integrable systems", and it is presumably not Wikipedea's purpose to reproduce, in detail, textbook material on such things, but to give an introduction, overview, perhaps context, with references. The equations in the article in question are only "variations" on these. Such variations are infinite, and anyone familiar with the subject, who wants to start writing down similar equations, could easily produce dozens of them. But if they do not describe, or model, some actual physical system, or possess the sorts of mathematical properties that make "integrable systems" a distinct field of interest, there would be little or no interest in them. (If you are interested in this, please consult the article "integrable systems", which gives an overview of the properties these involve.) As far as I know, the equations here referred to as "Myrzakulov's" do none of these things. I therefore don't think that these equations would even merit mention in an article devoted to the Landau-Lifschitz equations, because the "variations" do not really add to our knowledge or understanding about anything in physics or in mathematics.

In reply to N.N., the sorts of tagging that I am referring to consist of two kinds: in one case, this editor has drawn a line through the header of a user's contribution, because it stated, "Delete - as a matter of principle", with further arguments explaining his views, on the grounds that he had in a previously paragraph, already written "Very strong delete". The justification is "duplicate vote/ stricken by Jerry".

Now, as far as I understand, this is not a matter of registering votes, as in a ballot, but people expressing their opinions. If someone wants to emphasize his views by putting such a second emphasized header to a new paragraph, I see no justification for for an administrator, or anyone else, striking this out.

The second type of tagging that has been done in the case, to date, of four contributors to this discussion, is to add, to their address or signature labels like:

Antignom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

or

129.31.222.133 (talk • contribs) — 129.31.222.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits

the implication being, evidently, that if a contributor has not made previous contributions to Wikipedia, or does not have a user account, his/her remarks are somehow to be viewed as less pertinent or of doubtful value, even if it might happen to be the person with the greatest qualification to address the question. I have never heard that there was this sort of hierarchy on the value of contributions, depending on how many previous ones had been made. I also notice that these tags were only added to those contributors who had expressed the opinion that the article should be deleted, whereas the anonymous contributor who goes under the IP address 92.46.69.162, who is arguing to keep the article, has had no such tag attached. R_Physicist (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

...it is presumably not Wikipedea's purpose to reproduce, in detail, textbook material on such things, but to give an introduction, overview, perhaps context, with references. Well, this presumes too much, in fact. One of our charter ideas is that no amount of specialised information is excessive in itself. We have articles on very special topics indeed; the main criterion is that they should be supported well by references. Wikipedia is indeed not a textbook; but a summary of what is in standard textbooks may be included, if written within our "house style". Your comment it is only one of a fairly long list of equations that belong to the category of "integrable systems" I would not dispute; but (to a first approximation) each topic is considered on its own merits, not as exemplification of some other topic. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Two men in one

Hello. I just thought you might be interested in knowing that Ralph Baines and Rudolphus Baynus, whose articles you initiated, are in fact one and the same person. I happened to notice this while writing an article in French on Ralph Baines as part of a quest to find out more about the professors at the Collège de France. Best regards, Mu (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) - P.S. I am more often to be found at my discussion page on WP:FR than on WP

Thanks, that certainly is of interest. I'll be checking this out, and looking into a merge of these articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hah, better known as Ralph Baynes. I'm expanding the article now. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done... I'll let you know if ever I find a third one :) Mu (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support my article Myrzakulov equations. So I'm an author of the wiki article Myrzakulov equations. I'm is a former student of Myrzakulov. In Russian Wiki I had some problems from two russian users. After these two users tried delete my article during the previous first AfD discussion (see please Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations). Now at the second AfD discussion they with new names or their associates try to delete this article. In this second AfD case they comments and arguments absolutely same in contents and in the forms. So now I have same problems as in the previous case. In this difficult time for me I would like to ask you, dear Dr. Charles Matthews, help me to the end and to keep the article. Sorry for my poor english. Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

One basic problem here is that there is no article Landau-Lifshitz equation. This makes the discussion harder. If such an article existed, we could have a more reasonable discussion of the topic. In Myrzakulov equations itself, some more information should be added on the importance of the equations (area of application). Charles Matthews (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind msg. What if I will create a new and separate page on Landau-Lifshitz equation (LLE)? But it is more complex task for me. There are many well-known experts on LLE and I'm not good expert on LLE. So I think I can not write an article on LLE from the ethical point of view. Another basic problem is my poor english. How is your opinion? I need your advices. Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the best thing you can do, here! And others can help. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Vaux-de-Cernay Abbey

On 24 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vaux-de-Cernay Abbey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Poem and song

Where are you going with this? Are you just requesting clarification regarding policy or are you requesting an undelete? Hyacinth (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was being polite, actually. It was fairly clearly an arbitrary, out-of-process deletion. In other words a misuse of admin powers. I was giving you a chance to say something in your defence. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that my deletion of Poem and song did not qualify under any of the current Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion except for "Patent nonsense". Now I interpret the efforts at that article as good faith, but at the time all I saw was that the article supposed rather than asserted information which amounted to a redirect page with a title that was highly unlikely to be searched for. Hyacinth (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but (speaking to Hyacinth) poem and song is a literary term, as listed at List of literary terms (from which it was linked - did you check that before deleting?). It was added to that list with this edit. Admittedly, the content of the article you deleted wasn't very academic or well-referenced, and there could be an argument that not every term on that list needs an article, but still, CSD was not appropriate. I think you should undelete and take to AfD, or just plain undelete (it was perfectly happy for over a year with only one minor edit). Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting something on a list of terms does not make it a term. Hyacinth (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and after looking around I'm struggling to find a clear definition, but the point is that if you have to start thinking about stuff like this, it is clearly not suitable for speedy deletion. It might in the end be deleted, but deletion buttons are given to admins to clean up obvious stuff, not stuff like this. That is why WP:CSD developed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you want the article "Poem and song" undeleted? Hyacinth (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Undelete it, and make it a proposed deletion if you feel strongly the content is weak, which would have been appropriate in the first place. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

When did you stop trying to be polite? Hyacinth (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, what you did there makes no sense under deletion policy. Your line that the article supposed rather than asserted information which amounted to a redirect page with a title that was highly unlikely to be searched for has nothing to do with the conditions under which the admin power to delete may properly be employed. If there had been some other reason, such as copyvio, which would have amounted to a good-faith conception of why the page didn't belong on the site, that would have been another matter. In practical terms you killed off a a page you didn't like with an unhelpful two word edit summary. You went out of process. You can expect to be called on that. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Q question

This look about right?: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection/additions_and_updates#Mathematics? We have picked clean versions of most of the better rated articles from 1.0 but then put in a bias toward more elementary topics and clearer articles? --BozMo talk 14:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK. Nothing stands out as an oddity. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --BozMo talk 17:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode images

Hi; I see you voted to reject our case on the grounds of not enough effort at resolving the dispute. I urge you to look much more closely at the history and the attitude of some of those involved; we're never going to discuss it amongst ourselves and come to an agreement. Not this side of Heaven, anyway... I do honestly believe that this needs a "higher authority" to rule, not a group of arguing people (myself included!) to come to a consensus... we have such polarised views, you see. Look at some of the phrases I quoted, refusing to accept that there could be an argument on the other side, as an example. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of mediation is to clarify positions. I think you should allow someone skilled in the area to do that for you. Don't be so keen to take matters to court. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, do honestly believe that this needs a "higher authority" to rule, not a group of arguing people (myself included!) to come to a consensus... we have such polarised views. I cannot imagine mediation making any difference whatsoever... the case wouldn't be that long and I do urge you to accept it! Not to mention the behavioural issues... —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Final comment from R_Physicist (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please note my final comments on the User talk:R_physicist page. R_Physicist (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban of Sathya Sai Baba and Andries' COI

Regarding your comments Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_4. I admit that I have a WP:COI. but a very limited one i.e. regarding linking to exbaba.com and defamatory statements reg. former followers and opponents. Nevertheless I want to insert one or two statements on Sathya Sai Baba (or propose it on the talk page) in which my COI plays a small role i.e. distinguishing between two groups of detractors of Sathya Sai Baba.

By phlegmatic opponents, siddhis are light-heartedly ridiculed as fraudulent trickery indulged to entice the gullible. [..] Other observers, like Brooke and those whose testimony he found to be evidence of siddhis to be corrobative of his own, confirm the authenticity of his own, confirm the empirical evidence of siddhis in a more intense way. Their scathing attacks are fiercely denunciatory. [..] The former group is convinced that there is deceit in the methods employed, [...]The latter group remains convinced of the malevolence of the power that is so harnessed and exploited.

— Bowen, David, The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its origins and development, religious beliefs and practices. Leeds: University Press, 1988. page 280

Andries (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Irwin

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Robert Irwin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Robert Irwin. Kleinzach (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that solves the problem then. --Kleinzach (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I've seen your important contributions for the article Hypergeometric series. I'm looking for the general algebraic structure for the exact trigonometric constants of the form: ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$, when n is natural. Do you know of any such general algebraic (non-trigonometric) structure (if not for the cosine - then for the sine or the tangent or the cotangent)? Eliko (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand. These can be given by radicals, and the quadratic equations involved are obvious from the duplication formula. But the expression in terms of roots of unity is algebraic, too. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain: if we choose n=1 then the term ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$ becomes "0", which is a simple (non-trigonometric) constant. If we choose n=2 then the term ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$ becomes ${\begin{aligned}{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}\end{aligned}}$, which is again an algebraic (non-trigonometric) constant. etc. etc. Generally, for every natural n, the term ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$ becomes an algebraic (non-trigonometric) constant. However, the very term ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$ per se - is not an algebraic term but rather is a trigonometric (non-algebraic) term. I'm looking for the algebraic (non-trigonometric) term equivalent to ${\begin{aligned}\cos {\frac {\pi }{2^{n}}}\end{aligned}}$ (if not for the cosine - then for the sine or the tangent or the cotangent).

Eliko (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't understand the vague usage of "algebraic" here. As I say, if you take the duplication formula for cos, and use the value for ${\begin{aligned}{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}\end{aligned}}$, you can get a quadratic equation to solve for the case n = 3. And so on. That's an iterative process producing a solution in radicals each time. If you don't like that ... well, you have to explain the motivation for the question, really. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC).

In "algebraic" - I simply mean "non-trigonometric", i.e. not expressed by trigonometric terms such as "cos" etc. I'm not looking for an iterative formula, but rather for the general formula. Eliko (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't mean that, or you'd be happy with the formula as the average of two nth roots of unity. A great deal is known about how to solve those equations, but unless you have a specific application that can use the structure I think I've told you the truth about way to solve here. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The well known way for calculating the nth root of unity - is by using trigonometric terms (such as the cosine and the sine). I'm looking for an algebraic expression which is neither iterative nor can only be calculated by trigonometric terms. This is an abstract mathematical question in pure mathematics. Eliko (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm the one using the language of pure mathematics. This is an algebraic number - as is any nth root of unity. It has degree 2^{n - 1} over the rational numbers. It lies in a number field having only one quadratic field as subfield, namely the field generated by the square root of 2. That means, from what we know of the structure, to climb up within the field to find the number in question we must extract n - 1 square roots. Abstractly this tells us there is no reason that there should be any reason to improve on iteratively solving quadratics. While this doesn't rule out some clever way of getting to an answer in a given problem, it does suggest that what you're asking for is not too reasonable. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for having confused you with the term "algebraic": When I wrote "algebraic" I meant - not with the sense of "algebraic number" - but rather with the sense of "non-trigonometric". To sum up: my question is whether there really exists such a general (i.e non-iterative) algebraic (i.e. non-trigonometric) expression. If you don't want to tell me how it looks like, so please tell me whether such an expression does really exist, when n is not given in advance. Eliko (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a guess? Eliko (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a short answer because of too many edit conflicts as you change the question. No, there is a good reason in the algebra I mentioned. You have still not told me why you need to know, so I can't be more helpful. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for the edit conflicts. Regarding your request: Any answer for my original question could have been helpful in answering other questions, like: finding a non-trigonometric proof for the following algebraic, non-trigonometric claim: Every real interval includes a point x having a natural number n such that ${\begin{aligned}(x+i)^{n}\end{aligned}}$ is a real number. Note that this is an algebraic, non-trigonometric claim, so one may naturally expect that it may be proven by a non-trigonometric proof. Eliko (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bishops

Jakob Tengström and Ericus Erici Sorolainen - I must be turning into you lol!! Are you interested in religious figures from countries other than france, italy and germany? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not the nationality nor the religious status in fact - just that if there is a historical figure needed, getting a stub started is a good idea. It happens that (for example) there are many more people who work on military history than on church history. So quite a high proportion of those I find to work on are religious. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

About tensor densities

Hi, i want to integrate the italian wikipedia article on tensor densities with a point of view more related to diffenrential geometry then it's now. I dont know any book that explain the topic the way u did in Tensor field, so i wondered if u can give me some references. Thank you in advance, and sorry for my bad english =) --Sky87 (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a long time ago! Have a look at this page: http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/TensorDensity.html. PlanetMath articles are OK to use in Wikipedia. This is perhaps a more conventional treatment and can be a "bridge" to the more abstract approach. Also the Encyclopedia of Mathematics article is a reference: http://eom.springer.de/T/t092390.htm. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your email

You seem to have the wrong email address at WP:ARBCOM, an error made when they switched to the new email template. I didn't want to change it myself, in case you have a new one. --Golbez (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, fixed now. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Robb

A tag has been placed on Robb, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Thisisborin9^talk/_contribs 05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad nomination - please check the page history first. The page had been vandalised. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd checked the history on this, but obviously made an error, apologies, Jimfbleak (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)