Since you have now admitted knowledge of the hoax nature of that page Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix, and that your comments at VfD defending it were in bad faith, I am going to pursue this matter. Since I think you should be banned, please answer with care.
First point to put to you: did you create the page, as the anonymous editor 65.177.73.18, on 4 April 2004? (And if not, what was your extent of knowledge of it?)
Second point, you have been editing under the current user name since October 2004. Are there any other edits you wish to be identified with on the English Wikipedia? In particular, do you wish to make public any sockpuppets you may operate here? Were you editing Wikipedia earlier than October 2004? Are there any friends or collaborators who edit here who have to your knowledge also been in some way involved or complicit in hoaxing? Do you have anything to do with the Bryleigh's Theorem hoax postings, or knowledge about them? When you refer to 'clues' in your VfD edits, would you like to explain what clues or cues to the hoax nature of CNOM were offered, and by whom?
Third point, do you have any knowledge relevant to the recent User:Slim Jim vandalism attack of small hoax edits in mathematics?
Fourth point, since the CNOM page shows considerable 'insider' knowledge of mathematical jargon and habits of writing, and you made some plausible allusions to mathematical matters at VfD, will you disclose your academic involvement with mathematics, or whether you have been supplied by someone else with this kind of material?
Fifth, since your user page contains a number of comments of an aggressive and antisocial nature, such as the sneering about 'civility', would you like to give an account of yourself in relation to the WP project which would convince anyone that you have some intention of being a better community member in the future? Charles Matthews 12:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Because I like a clean talk page every month, this discussion will be deleted in one week, irregardless. — ExplorerCDT 13:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One more chance to be cooperative. You wrote at VfD:
The article has been up for 8 months. You can only leave so many clues. ;-)
Smileys don't actually mitigate. 'You can only leave so many clues' refers to what in particular? Charles Matthews 15:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think you're in any position to be abusive, or evasive. You have put yourself in a false position in the community. Clean up your user page, clean up your act, or take the consequences. Bad faith editing is an automatic problem user badge. There are still the questions: what were your anon edits here, what are these 'tongue-in-cheek' non-hoax edits, why are you know so sure about the CNOM hoax since you don't seem to have studied abstract algebra?
By the way, I'm aware there is an RfC up for you.
Charles Matthews 15:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea who fvw is. Flogging a dead horse would seem apt for 'opposing' me for the ArbCom elections, now over. There has been a rash of hoax edits, and if you want to dissociate yourself from them you have an odd way of doing it. Charles Matthews 11:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Think you don't get it, XCDT. If you are not involved in the hoaxes, except peripherally and by chance, you have a really strange way of showing it. I haven't misrepresented you. Charles Matthews 18:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since you have now admitted knowledge of the hoax nature of that page Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix, and that your comments at VfD defending it were in bad faith, I am going to pursue this matter. Since I think you should be banned, please answer with care.
First point to put to you: did you create the page, as the anonymous editor 65.177.73.18, on 4 April 2004? (And if not, what was your extent of knowledge of it?)
Second point, you have been editing under the current user name since October 2004. Are there any other edits you wish to be identified with on the English Wikipedia? In particular, do you wish to make public any sockpuppets you may operate here? Were you editing Wikipedia earlier than October 2004? Are there any friends or collaborators who edit here who have to your knowledge also been in some way involved or complicit in hoaxing? Do you have anything to do with the Bryleigh's Theorem hoax postings, or knowledge about them? When you refer to 'clues' in your VfD edits, would you like to explain what clues or cues to the hoax nature of CNOM were offered, and by whom?
Third point, do you have any knowledge relevant to the recent User:Slim Jim vandalism attack of small hoax edits in mathematics?
Fourth point, since the CNOM page shows considerable 'insider' knowledge of mathematical jargon and habits of writing, and you made some plausible allusions to mathematical matters at VfD, will you disclose your academic involvement with mathematics, or whether you have been supplied by someone else with this kind of material?
Fifth, since your user page contains a number of comments of an aggressive and antisocial nature, such as the sneering about 'civility', would you like to give an account of yourself in relation to the WP project which would convince anyone that you have some intention of being a better community member in the future? Charles Matthews 12:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Because I like a clean talk page every month, this discussion will be deleted in one week, irregardless. — ExplorerCDT 13:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One more chance to be cooperative. You wrote at VfD:
The article has been up for 8 months. You can only leave so many clues. ;-)
Smileys don't actually mitigate. 'You can only leave so many clues' refers to what in particular? Charles Matthews 15:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think you're in any position to be abusive, or evasive. You have put yourself in a false position in the community. Clean up your user page, clean up your act, or take the consequences. Bad faith editing is an automatic problem user badge. There are still the questions: what were your anon edits here, what are these 'tongue-in-cheek' non-hoax edits, why are you know so sure about the CNOM hoax since you don't seem to have studied abstract algebra?
By the way, I'm aware there is an RfC up for you.
Charles Matthews 15:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea who fvw is. Flogging a dead horse would seem apt for 'opposing' me for the ArbCom elections, now over. There has been a rash of hoax edits, and if you want to dissociate yourself from them you have an odd way of doing it. Charles Matthews 11:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Think you don't get it, XCDT. If you are not involved in the hoaxes, except peripherally and by chance, you have a really strange way of showing it. I haven't misrepresented you. Charles Matthews 18:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)