This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Was I suppose ot stop editign the Page? I knwo you emaield me and sia d their may be an injunction, btu I am not aware of oen now and have edited it since.
If this si a violation, it was accedentla, but I jus htogut of it.
Anyway thanks.
ZAROVE 16:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Charles: re Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision - is it too late to quibble point 3 - see my talk comment there. William M. Connolley 17:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC).
For your reference here are those artyicles in the Hebrew Wiki:
Does it make sense to you that History will look completly different depend only on if one reads it in English Wiki or in Hebrew Wiki ?
As part of mediation I'll be glad to traslate these articles.
You do realise (a) that you are ignoring the point about behaviour and content, (b) you are trying to exploit a perfectly open and honest discussion about the implications (for science, mostly) of a principle I mentioned reservations about, and this reflects badly on you, and (c) if you had wished to impress anyone on Wikipedia with your identity, you could have edited openly, as William and I do? Highly-politicised articles are a very bad way to judge what we are doing here. Charles Matthews 08:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You are very persistent, but I have not the slightest intention of discussing my views with you on Israel. Charles Matthews 08:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you like this in real life, by the way? Hectoring, full of negative assumptions about others, using unpleasant arguments just for effect? Charles Matthews 08:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh no. Far too easy for someone to use this kind of talk page discussion for that, posting every ten minutes and fishing for replies. Nice try. Charles Matthews 09:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You called me 'not very civilized' before, since I wouldn't engage in discussion before voting on the case. I defend my judgement on that. Now you feel entitled to make a large number of postings to this page, with wild accusations. Please stop that now. You are achieving nothing. Charles Matthews 09:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As I say, you are achieving nothing by continuing to post accusations here. You will find nothing on Wikipedia to support any claim at all that I am biased in this matter. You might care to read some of the mathematical biographies I have created, instead of reiterating unfounded claims. Charles Matthews 11:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Zeq 18:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
PS I saw you worked on Paul Erdos, here is another mathematical Biography for you to work on: Brendan_McKay - do you know him ? Zeq 18:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know McKay. I met Erdos a few times, played go with him twice. Now please stop repeating the same nonsense on this page. You seem to understand little or nothing about Wikipedia processes, and nothing about the ArbCom. You apparently don't understand the concept of 'counter-productive'. I am really not obliged to debate with you, just because 250 members of the community expressed confidence in me. Charles Matthews 19:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Charles. Some articles in wikipedia have reached a high level of quality. I think at the beginning wiki-editors just write what they know and in fact introduce the way they see thinks. With time, articles'level become higher and higher with the contribution and the introduction of new material.
In parallel the risk of having quarrels that cannot be solved between wiki-editors become higher and higher because topics do not deal with what is "well known by most people" and that can be easily verified and to a compromise but deal with "details" of "facts" known or understood by few people. The compromise is therefore harder to reach. Misunderstanding and quarrels arise more likely.
I think this (one of) the heart(s) of the problem in the subjet treated by ArbCom concerning Zeq and Ian's case.
For historical articles that are highly controversial, I think a "neutral" way of evaluating relevance and hierarchy among sources should be found. For highly controversial topics, I think this could solve much problems because will determine what information to add or not or how. More in the current case that is what Zeq and Ian require in a way : a NPOV way of dealing with sources.
I have suggested some rules in the workshop. After reading your comments just above I realize that maybe in hard science this could not be applicable but the matter is different there. What do you thinnk about this : [3]. User:ChrisC 12:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
"The relevance of an academician CANNOT be disputed by wiki-editors." This isn't great. For example, it is now very common for academics in English (by doctorate or department) to write on issues of history.
Reasonable people can usually resolve such difficulties. Starting in the Israeli-Palestine arguments may make the issues very clear, but the solutions should not then be applied very generally in Wikipedia. There is a principle 'hard cases make bad law'. Trying to draft rules, based on such a case where everyone knows that propaganda is a major factor, that then apply everywhere (for example in science) is somewhat dangerous. Charles Matthews 13:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you know, Zeq has been making some completely unreasonable comments here: pure denigration and accusation.
In science, the issue is this: using quotations from scientific papers, properly peer-reviewed and all that, in a legalistic way, is not a correct approach. There are various ways to mislead. For example, statistical techniques can never prove that a drug is 100% safe. Any scientist will admit this. But if you use such 'admissions' badly in an article, you can mislead the reader. Therefore it is quite reasonable that the quotation is cut out, even if the person quoted is a Nobel Prize winner. This kind of situation is actually normal for science, though lawyers may not understand it.
My experience (at Acharya S, which is an almost impossible situation) is that NPOV can indeed be difficult, if one 'side' has low-quality references. I don't agree that, for that reason, low-quality references should appear here, in detail.
For example it is better to have them given as external links, and make annotations such as 'partisan website'.
And in general, I think NPOV may not give 'perfect' articles.
In these cases we sometimes have to wait, until better sources become available. If editors are impatient - which is the major problem with many political issues here - there can be big problems even if everyone is sincere. I prefer the kind of 'sincerity' which understands what WP is for, and admits that its purposes are not compatible with some kinds of advocacy. Charles Matthews 15:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The quality of sources in the case of Palestinian exodus is similar. Benny Morris is on one side - his quotes fill the article. On the other side is Efraim Karsh who is a professor of a distinguish university in London. Every time I interduced his POV Zero would delete it. This whole process of ArbCom is totaly biased because they never bothered to look at the whole evidence. But it will come back, I am counting on it. Infact the more they go against me the better. It only shows their inability to get to the bottom of the issue and to come up with solutions that would make the article NPOV. I have so far failed in my attempts to make the articleNPOV but so did Aileen (who is a German Wikipedia admin and so did many other editors . The simple fact that this article is "owned" by a group of Pro-Palestinians propagdist is something that the honolarble "ArbCom" does not care. What a joke. Zeq 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." -- Phronima 15:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material .
This maybe of value:
Zeq
21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
as discussed before, I was not satisfied with the fundamental theorem of projective geometry page as it didn't even mention nonsingular semilinear maps. I made a collineation page :
Where i explain collineations and what the fundamental theorem of projective geometry says about them
However on the Fundamental theorem of projective geometry my several attemps to redirect it to collineation page have failed? What did I do wrong?
Also, while my decision to just redirect might be harsh, I do plan on elaborating a bit in the future, about correlations, collineation group, polarities,etc...
A final question : my english lets me down here. When you consider a space V and its dual space V', you can map every subspace W of V to the set of dual vectors becoming zero on it. The bigger W, the smaller its image under that map. Is that called annihilator? Is that common terminology worldwide? It is interesting for me as every correlation of V to W, comes down to a collineation of V to W's dual space, thus the fundamental theorem also immediately helps you finding all correlations (and this leads to polarities...)
Evilbu 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I see it just took some time. Hmm, annihilators so I am correct, but I probably couldn't just write that, there should be an annihilator page for vector spaces as well (for rings there is already one). However, I am only familiar with the finite dimensional case, that's what holds me back now. Evilbu 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Nous pouvons continuer par français, si vous le voulez. En tout cas, j'ai voulu vous expliquer un peu pourquoi William et moi, nous disputions ici à propos des sciences. Je ne trouve pas les questions du cas Zeq tellement sympas. Charles Matthews 17:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As a retalvly new user at Wikipedia I have only came accross this page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes in part of your decision in my ArbCom case.
It is enfortunate that I was not ware of this page before cause it would have allowed me ways to seeq what i have ben looking for in the case of Artcle Palestinia_Exodus which is ways to get wider participations and mediators.
I have noticed that ArbCom is mentioned only as "last resort"
Therefor I would like to make a motion to suspend the ArbCom case and to first ensure the dispute over this article goes through all the steps mention in the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes policy. If I am not mistaken it is actually a pre-condition to any ArbCom case.
Thank You. Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, you could learn to listen better. If I say that the ArbCom does not deal directly with content, why do you bang on about content? If I say that I think it is better that you are not banned indefinitely, why can't you take the point? Which is that you can apply to have the ban lifted, if there is some chance that you will then have shown yourself a more constructive editor? Charles Matthews 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You Know You should pay more attention to facts and evidence and motions. You think your job is to ban me so just ban me. If you think your job is to help Wikipedia implemnt it's NPOV and othr policies find a way to do your job - the best that you understand it to be. I am a constructibve editor and the only problem is that ArbCom has allowed a gang of pro-Palestinian propeganda to "own" an article on which even mediation is refused. I am not intersted in any "ban lifted". could not care less if it is "lifted" or not. I am only intrested to help Wikipedia implemnet it's NPOV policy on that article. Is that clear ? Zeq 06:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Charles, yes, I have, but feel free to remove the info if the unofficial things should not be posted. Best, LM -- Lumidek 23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
As you know, I am one of the editors in danger of getting banned from 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I hope you will look examine the actual issue carefully before placing your vote. At least do take a look at some other proposed proposed decisions in the Workshop.
I know Zeq has been utterly counter-productive, at times rude during this case. I do not support his style, and tried to tell him to take it easy per e-mail a couple of times, apparently without success.
I hope that the arbitration case will get to the issue, which is (for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War) the legitimacy of the quotations of Haj Amin al-Husayni. Two quotations are disputed, you will find sources here , and here.
With best regards, -- Heptor talk 23:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
A final decision has been reached in this case, and it has been closed.
For the arbitration committee-- Tony Sidaway 06:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, both are right. I'm changing it back, because I think it sounds more natural. Infinity0 talk 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted Talk:CarlHewitt. Isn't the more correct thing to do to delete the user page and blank the talk page? As far as I can tell, this has been the convention recently. – Joke 02:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Just making sure that everyone who gets into a discussion with Licorne knows about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne - we've been here a while, and you may have seen it before.... -- Alvestrand 15:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If a red link is obsolete or unlikely to be updated, sometime I delete them. I also delete red links by creating new pages from the red linked subjects and enter all the (non copy-wrighted) info I can, hoping others will add to it. I also correct grammar, spelling, syntax, and, when I come across it, POV.
There are just way too many insignificant, obsolete, useless red links for some not to be removed, they are distracting. If anyone wants to create a page about a subject no longer red linked, who's stopping them. Sorry it has upset you so much.
Rms125a@hotmail.com 23:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If a red link is obsolete or unlikely to be updated, sometime I delete them. I also delete red links by creating new pages from the red linked subjects and enter all the (non copy-wrighted) info I can, hoping others will add to it. I also correct grammar, spelling, syntax, and, when I come across it, POV.
There are just way too many insignificant, obsolete, useless red links for some not to be removed, they are distracting. If anyone wants to create a page about a subject no longer red linked, who's stopping them.
Rms125a@hotmail.com 23:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Charles, you reverted Pwforaker on [[africa School recently. He'd done a large edit, adding text that was <ahem> somewhat less than neutral. We've had an email to the Foundation from someone connected with the school, to say that Pwforaker's edit was correcting a lot of inaccuracies in the article and asking how they could get these corrections added. I've directed them to the talk page, and suggeted they make smaller and more netural edits - could you keep an eye out for these and see if he needs any help and guidance? Hopefully he can avoid getting reverted this time. Many thanks -- sannse (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed on Talk:Quotient field to rename the page. I'd be very grateful to hear your comments there on what you think - thanks! — ciphergoth 09:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you see that Peter Freyd quoted a paragraph we coauthored from Disjunction and existence properties in an argument on the categories list? Recognition at last! Our labours are not in vain! --- Charles Stewart (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
But I must restate the problems I have here. First of all, the statement of "insertion of POV" as a bannable offense is vague and open to interpretation, and I don't trust administrators, many of whom edit from a point of view that is ideologically closer to Ruy Lopez than to myself. Second, Ruy Lopez has done more than enough to receive a ban on KR related articles, in fact all articles (if anyone here bothered to look at the evidence). I have seen others banned from articles altogether for commiting lesser or equal crimes. It is disturbing that the Arbcom has not come up with a "finding of fact" condemning him of POV pushing. Third, there is no guarentee that his sockpuppets would be detected if he used a proxy or masked his IP. The provision I placed in the Workshop (which was ignored) called for the banning of people reasonably believed to be Ruy Lopez (i.e. making very similar edits). The Arbcom had no problem passing the same thing in a decision involving a certain User:Beckjord. Thank you. CJK 00:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've requested arbitration now. -- Michael Snow 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that we have a misunderstanding here. I usually avoid administrators, but this situation calls for action to crack down on a rouge user, whose violations have been documented. What I meant was that considering Ruy Lopez was receiving punishment based on his edits, logically even if some of the suspected aren't Ruy Lopez sockpuppets, they are still commiting the same wrong doing. And there is proof that Ruy Lopez uses proxies or masks his IP so that often relationships between users cannot be determined. Some previous conclusions by the Arbcom show that they don't always shy away from these measures. Perhaps you thought I was demanding a crackdown on all users who hold his views, which would not be true. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted me. Thank you once again. CJK 00:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your edit summary about cross-fertilization bewteen that article and Kirillov character formula. The article is still in very primitive state, and I will eventually do more on it, at least the basic theorem for nilpotent groups. Eventually I would like to tie it to system of imprimitivity and Stone-von Neumann theorem. Don't expect too much too quickly, though.
As I mentioned in an edit summary (let's keep Oleg-the-Bot happy) my historical knowledge about this is truly pathetic. I hope I don't piss anybody off.-- CSTAR 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Charles,
Your bias toward me was clear. But as a math proffesional I wonder if you would be kind enough to look at the evidence:
Please review this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Evidence#Evidence_ignored_by_ArbCom Thanks ! Zeq 20:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
reply doesn't seem to come on the block design page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_design
I am taking a class on finite geometry right now, and both with the intention of learning/contributing, I took a look at that page.
I find it to be very confusing. My main difficulty is that the title is block design, then it explains a 2 design, then t designs, then it saids that usually two designs are called block designs. Wouldn't it be better if the title were changed to t-designs. If so, plz tell me how to change a title.
this is what definition i saw is a t design if there are v points, k points on every block, through any distinct t points there are exactly blocks
apart from divisibility conditions, they are independent, while b, the number of blocks, and r, the number of blocks through a point, are not independent.
when it is a Steiner system
when it is a block design
It is better to see blocks as elements, that are incident with points, not as sets of points (otherwise you assume there are no repeated blocks)
Do you agree with these definitions and properties?
Any hints or comments are welcome.
Evilbu 15:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Charles: The article, Trend estimate, is an interesting one. I just wonder if you have readily available detailed information to add to the section about auto-correlated data. I am trying to learn about the topic from papers and textbooks. --Roland 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
All of WAREL's edits are a matter of concern, due to his previous actions.
Are you aware of the exact contribution of Yamabe to the solution of this problem? Mathworld says that the solvable case was completed in 1952 by Montgomery and Zippin, and that Yamabe "combined" the results in 1953. Does the article give a correct impression at present? Elroch 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Charles My watch list shows you edited the entry on Maine, my great great grandfather, but I am new to Wikipedia and cannot quite see what changes you have made. Guide me Sibadd 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Charles. I've just discovered a discussion about some apparently incorrect material at bounded operator which arrived there from an addition of yours to operator norm a long time back in 2003. I was interested in possible repairs to the material, I wonder if you could comment at Talk:bounded operator. Thanks. - lethe talk + 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Charles, I would like your permission to nominate you to the proposed Wikipedia:Scientific peer review board. I understand that you may well be stretched thin, but even a small amount of attention would be appreciated. For example, you might list / choose others who would perform the necessary detailed work. Alternatively, I might, with your permission, explicitly state this possibility on Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review -- Ancheta Wis 17:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_22_over_7_exceeds_π?
Some people are actually saying any article devoted to a partiucalar mathematical proof is non-encyclopedic and should be deleted! Or that all articles primarily for mathematicians, that the general reader will not understand, should be deleted. Michael Hardy 17:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. Just wanted to see if your linking Robert Ingersoll Aitken means that a) you are creating an article for him, b) you want me to create an article for him, or c) none of the above. I figured maybe it was a roundabout way of giving me a peer review comment, so if you want I will try to come up with an article for him. But if you're already making one, I don't want to step on your toes. Just let me know. Thanks! Kafziel 20:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Instead take the time to find the best Lists subcategory for it. Thanks. -- JeffW 20:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:
Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [12] you wrote:
I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [13] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.
However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:
Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [14], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. ( User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).
Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.
Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Was I suppose ot stop editign the Page? I knwo you emaield me and sia d their may be an injunction, btu I am not aware of oen now and have edited it since.
If this si a violation, it was accedentla, but I jus htogut of it.
Anyway thanks.
ZAROVE 16:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Charles: re Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision - is it too late to quibble point 3 - see my talk comment there. William M. Connolley 17:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC).
For your reference here are those artyicles in the Hebrew Wiki:
Does it make sense to you that History will look completly different depend only on if one reads it in English Wiki or in Hebrew Wiki ?
As part of mediation I'll be glad to traslate these articles.
You do realise (a) that you are ignoring the point about behaviour and content, (b) you are trying to exploit a perfectly open and honest discussion about the implications (for science, mostly) of a principle I mentioned reservations about, and this reflects badly on you, and (c) if you had wished to impress anyone on Wikipedia with your identity, you could have edited openly, as William and I do? Highly-politicised articles are a very bad way to judge what we are doing here. Charles Matthews 08:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You are very persistent, but I have not the slightest intention of discussing my views with you on Israel. Charles Matthews 08:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you like this in real life, by the way? Hectoring, full of negative assumptions about others, using unpleasant arguments just for effect? Charles Matthews 08:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh no. Far too easy for someone to use this kind of talk page discussion for that, posting every ten minutes and fishing for replies. Nice try. Charles Matthews 09:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You called me 'not very civilized' before, since I wouldn't engage in discussion before voting on the case. I defend my judgement on that. Now you feel entitled to make a large number of postings to this page, with wild accusations. Please stop that now. You are achieving nothing. Charles Matthews 09:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As I say, you are achieving nothing by continuing to post accusations here. You will find nothing on Wikipedia to support any claim at all that I am biased in this matter. You might care to read some of the mathematical biographies I have created, instead of reiterating unfounded claims. Charles Matthews 11:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Zeq 18:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
PS I saw you worked on Paul Erdos, here is another mathematical Biography for you to work on: Brendan_McKay - do you know him ? Zeq 18:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know McKay. I met Erdos a few times, played go with him twice. Now please stop repeating the same nonsense on this page. You seem to understand little or nothing about Wikipedia processes, and nothing about the ArbCom. You apparently don't understand the concept of 'counter-productive'. I am really not obliged to debate with you, just because 250 members of the community expressed confidence in me. Charles Matthews 19:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Charles. Some articles in wikipedia have reached a high level of quality. I think at the beginning wiki-editors just write what they know and in fact introduce the way they see thinks. With time, articles'level become higher and higher with the contribution and the introduction of new material.
In parallel the risk of having quarrels that cannot be solved between wiki-editors become higher and higher because topics do not deal with what is "well known by most people" and that can be easily verified and to a compromise but deal with "details" of "facts" known or understood by few people. The compromise is therefore harder to reach. Misunderstanding and quarrels arise more likely.
I think this (one of) the heart(s) of the problem in the subjet treated by ArbCom concerning Zeq and Ian's case.
For historical articles that are highly controversial, I think a "neutral" way of evaluating relevance and hierarchy among sources should be found. For highly controversial topics, I think this could solve much problems because will determine what information to add or not or how. More in the current case that is what Zeq and Ian require in a way : a NPOV way of dealing with sources.
I have suggested some rules in the workshop. After reading your comments just above I realize that maybe in hard science this could not be applicable but the matter is different there. What do you thinnk about this : [3]. User:ChrisC 12:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
"The relevance of an academician CANNOT be disputed by wiki-editors." This isn't great. For example, it is now very common for academics in English (by doctorate or department) to write on issues of history.
Reasonable people can usually resolve such difficulties. Starting in the Israeli-Palestine arguments may make the issues very clear, but the solutions should not then be applied very generally in Wikipedia. There is a principle 'hard cases make bad law'. Trying to draft rules, based on such a case where everyone knows that propaganda is a major factor, that then apply everywhere (for example in science) is somewhat dangerous. Charles Matthews 13:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you know, Zeq has been making some completely unreasonable comments here: pure denigration and accusation.
In science, the issue is this: using quotations from scientific papers, properly peer-reviewed and all that, in a legalistic way, is not a correct approach. There are various ways to mislead. For example, statistical techniques can never prove that a drug is 100% safe. Any scientist will admit this. But if you use such 'admissions' badly in an article, you can mislead the reader. Therefore it is quite reasonable that the quotation is cut out, even if the person quoted is a Nobel Prize winner. This kind of situation is actually normal for science, though lawyers may not understand it.
My experience (at Acharya S, which is an almost impossible situation) is that NPOV can indeed be difficult, if one 'side' has low-quality references. I don't agree that, for that reason, low-quality references should appear here, in detail.
For example it is better to have them given as external links, and make annotations such as 'partisan website'.
And in general, I think NPOV may not give 'perfect' articles.
In these cases we sometimes have to wait, until better sources become available. If editors are impatient - which is the major problem with many political issues here - there can be big problems even if everyone is sincere. I prefer the kind of 'sincerity' which understands what WP is for, and admits that its purposes are not compatible with some kinds of advocacy. Charles Matthews 15:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The quality of sources in the case of Palestinian exodus is similar. Benny Morris is on one side - his quotes fill the article. On the other side is Efraim Karsh who is a professor of a distinguish university in London. Every time I interduced his POV Zero would delete it. This whole process of ArbCom is totaly biased because they never bothered to look at the whole evidence. But it will come back, I am counting on it. Infact the more they go against me the better. It only shows their inability to get to the bottom of the issue and to come up with solutions that would make the article NPOV. I have so far failed in my attempts to make the articleNPOV but so did Aileen (who is a German Wikipedia admin and so did many other editors . The simple fact that this article is "owned" by a group of Pro-Palestinians propagdist is something that the honolarble "ArbCom" does not care. What a joke. Zeq 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." -- Phronima 15:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material .
This maybe of value:
Zeq
21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
as discussed before, I was not satisfied with the fundamental theorem of projective geometry page as it didn't even mention nonsingular semilinear maps. I made a collineation page :
Where i explain collineations and what the fundamental theorem of projective geometry says about them
However on the Fundamental theorem of projective geometry my several attemps to redirect it to collineation page have failed? What did I do wrong?
Also, while my decision to just redirect might be harsh, I do plan on elaborating a bit in the future, about correlations, collineation group, polarities,etc...
A final question : my english lets me down here. When you consider a space V and its dual space V', you can map every subspace W of V to the set of dual vectors becoming zero on it. The bigger W, the smaller its image under that map. Is that called annihilator? Is that common terminology worldwide? It is interesting for me as every correlation of V to W, comes down to a collineation of V to W's dual space, thus the fundamental theorem also immediately helps you finding all correlations (and this leads to polarities...)
Evilbu 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I see it just took some time. Hmm, annihilators so I am correct, but I probably couldn't just write that, there should be an annihilator page for vector spaces as well (for rings there is already one). However, I am only familiar with the finite dimensional case, that's what holds me back now. Evilbu 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Nous pouvons continuer par français, si vous le voulez. En tout cas, j'ai voulu vous expliquer un peu pourquoi William et moi, nous disputions ici à propos des sciences. Je ne trouve pas les questions du cas Zeq tellement sympas. Charles Matthews 17:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As a retalvly new user at Wikipedia I have only came accross this page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes in part of your decision in my ArbCom case.
It is enfortunate that I was not ware of this page before cause it would have allowed me ways to seeq what i have ben looking for in the case of Artcle Palestinia_Exodus which is ways to get wider participations and mediators.
I have noticed that ArbCom is mentioned only as "last resort"
Therefor I would like to make a motion to suspend the ArbCom case and to first ensure the dispute over this article goes through all the steps mention in the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes policy. If I am not mistaken it is actually a pre-condition to any ArbCom case.
Thank You. Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, you could learn to listen better. If I say that the ArbCom does not deal directly with content, why do you bang on about content? If I say that I think it is better that you are not banned indefinitely, why can't you take the point? Which is that you can apply to have the ban lifted, if there is some chance that you will then have shown yourself a more constructive editor? Charles Matthews 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You Know You should pay more attention to facts and evidence and motions. You think your job is to ban me so just ban me. If you think your job is to help Wikipedia implemnt it's NPOV and othr policies find a way to do your job - the best that you understand it to be. I am a constructibve editor and the only problem is that ArbCom has allowed a gang of pro-Palestinian propeganda to "own" an article on which even mediation is refused. I am not intersted in any "ban lifted". could not care less if it is "lifted" or not. I am only intrested to help Wikipedia implemnet it's NPOV policy on that article. Is that clear ? Zeq 06:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Charles, yes, I have, but feel free to remove the info if the unofficial things should not be posted. Best, LM -- Lumidek 23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
As you know, I am one of the editors in danger of getting banned from 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I hope you will look examine the actual issue carefully before placing your vote. At least do take a look at some other proposed proposed decisions in the Workshop.
I know Zeq has been utterly counter-productive, at times rude during this case. I do not support his style, and tried to tell him to take it easy per e-mail a couple of times, apparently without success.
I hope that the arbitration case will get to the issue, which is (for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War) the legitimacy of the quotations of Haj Amin al-Husayni. Two quotations are disputed, you will find sources here , and here.
With best regards, -- Heptor talk 23:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
A final decision has been reached in this case, and it has been closed.
For the arbitration committee-- Tony Sidaway 06:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, both are right. I'm changing it back, because I think it sounds more natural. Infinity0 talk 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted Talk:CarlHewitt. Isn't the more correct thing to do to delete the user page and blank the talk page? As far as I can tell, this has been the convention recently. – Joke 02:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Just making sure that everyone who gets into a discussion with Licorne knows about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne - we've been here a while, and you may have seen it before.... -- Alvestrand 15:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If a red link is obsolete or unlikely to be updated, sometime I delete them. I also delete red links by creating new pages from the red linked subjects and enter all the (non copy-wrighted) info I can, hoping others will add to it. I also correct grammar, spelling, syntax, and, when I come across it, POV.
There are just way too many insignificant, obsolete, useless red links for some not to be removed, they are distracting. If anyone wants to create a page about a subject no longer red linked, who's stopping them. Sorry it has upset you so much.
Rms125a@hotmail.com 23:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If a red link is obsolete or unlikely to be updated, sometime I delete them. I also delete red links by creating new pages from the red linked subjects and enter all the (non copy-wrighted) info I can, hoping others will add to it. I also correct grammar, spelling, syntax, and, when I come across it, POV.
There are just way too many insignificant, obsolete, useless red links for some not to be removed, they are distracting. If anyone wants to create a page about a subject no longer red linked, who's stopping them.
Rms125a@hotmail.com 23:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Charles, you reverted Pwforaker on [[africa School recently. He'd done a large edit, adding text that was <ahem> somewhat less than neutral. We've had an email to the Foundation from someone connected with the school, to say that Pwforaker's edit was correcting a lot of inaccuracies in the article and asking how they could get these corrections added. I've directed them to the talk page, and suggeted they make smaller and more netural edits - could you keep an eye out for these and see if he needs any help and guidance? Hopefully he can avoid getting reverted this time. Many thanks -- sannse (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed on Talk:Quotient field to rename the page. I'd be very grateful to hear your comments there on what you think - thanks! — ciphergoth 09:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you see that Peter Freyd quoted a paragraph we coauthored from Disjunction and existence properties in an argument on the categories list? Recognition at last! Our labours are not in vain! --- Charles Stewart (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
But I must restate the problems I have here. First of all, the statement of "insertion of POV" as a bannable offense is vague and open to interpretation, and I don't trust administrators, many of whom edit from a point of view that is ideologically closer to Ruy Lopez than to myself. Second, Ruy Lopez has done more than enough to receive a ban on KR related articles, in fact all articles (if anyone here bothered to look at the evidence). I have seen others banned from articles altogether for commiting lesser or equal crimes. It is disturbing that the Arbcom has not come up with a "finding of fact" condemning him of POV pushing. Third, there is no guarentee that his sockpuppets would be detected if he used a proxy or masked his IP. The provision I placed in the Workshop (which was ignored) called for the banning of people reasonably believed to be Ruy Lopez (i.e. making very similar edits). The Arbcom had no problem passing the same thing in a decision involving a certain User:Beckjord. Thank you. CJK 00:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've requested arbitration now. -- Michael Snow 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that we have a misunderstanding here. I usually avoid administrators, but this situation calls for action to crack down on a rouge user, whose violations have been documented. What I meant was that considering Ruy Lopez was receiving punishment based on his edits, logically even if some of the suspected aren't Ruy Lopez sockpuppets, they are still commiting the same wrong doing. And there is proof that Ruy Lopez uses proxies or masks his IP so that often relationships between users cannot be determined. Some previous conclusions by the Arbcom show that they don't always shy away from these measures. Perhaps you thought I was demanding a crackdown on all users who hold his views, which would not be true. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted me. Thank you once again. CJK 00:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your edit summary about cross-fertilization bewteen that article and Kirillov character formula. The article is still in very primitive state, and I will eventually do more on it, at least the basic theorem for nilpotent groups. Eventually I would like to tie it to system of imprimitivity and Stone-von Neumann theorem. Don't expect too much too quickly, though.
As I mentioned in an edit summary (let's keep Oleg-the-Bot happy) my historical knowledge about this is truly pathetic. I hope I don't piss anybody off.-- CSTAR 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Charles,
Your bias toward me was clear. But as a math proffesional I wonder if you would be kind enough to look at the evidence:
Please review this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Evidence#Evidence_ignored_by_ArbCom Thanks ! Zeq 20:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
reply doesn't seem to come on the block design page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_design
I am taking a class on finite geometry right now, and both with the intention of learning/contributing, I took a look at that page.
I find it to be very confusing. My main difficulty is that the title is block design, then it explains a 2 design, then t designs, then it saids that usually two designs are called block designs. Wouldn't it be better if the title were changed to t-designs. If so, plz tell me how to change a title.
this is what definition i saw is a t design if there are v points, k points on every block, through any distinct t points there are exactly blocks
apart from divisibility conditions, they are independent, while b, the number of blocks, and r, the number of blocks through a point, are not independent.
when it is a Steiner system
when it is a block design
It is better to see blocks as elements, that are incident with points, not as sets of points (otherwise you assume there are no repeated blocks)
Do you agree with these definitions and properties?
Any hints or comments are welcome.
Evilbu 15:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Charles: The article, Trend estimate, is an interesting one. I just wonder if you have readily available detailed information to add to the section about auto-correlated data. I am trying to learn about the topic from papers and textbooks. --Roland 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
All of WAREL's edits are a matter of concern, due to his previous actions.
Are you aware of the exact contribution of Yamabe to the solution of this problem? Mathworld says that the solvable case was completed in 1952 by Montgomery and Zippin, and that Yamabe "combined" the results in 1953. Does the article give a correct impression at present? Elroch 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Charles My watch list shows you edited the entry on Maine, my great great grandfather, but I am new to Wikipedia and cannot quite see what changes you have made. Guide me Sibadd 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Charles. I've just discovered a discussion about some apparently incorrect material at bounded operator which arrived there from an addition of yours to operator norm a long time back in 2003. I was interested in possible repairs to the material, I wonder if you could comment at Talk:bounded operator. Thanks. - lethe talk + 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Charles, I would like your permission to nominate you to the proposed Wikipedia:Scientific peer review board. I understand that you may well be stretched thin, but even a small amount of attention would be appreciated. For example, you might list / choose others who would perform the necessary detailed work. Alternatively, I might, with your permission, explicitly state this possibility on Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review -- Ancheta Wis 17:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_22_over_7_exceeds_π?
Some people are actually saying any article devoted to a partiucalar mathematical proof is non-encyclopedic and should be deleted! Or that all articles primarily for mathematicians, that the general reader will not understand, should be deleted. Michael Hardy 17:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. Just wanted to see if your linking Robert Ingersoll Aitken means that a) you are creating an article for him, b) you want me to create an article for him, or c) none of the above. I figured maybe it was a roundabout way of giving me a peer review comment, so if you want I will try to come up with an article for him. But if you're already making one, I don't want to step on your toes. Just let me know. Thanks! Kafziel 20:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Instead take the time to find the best Lists subcategory for it. Thanks. -- JeffW 20:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:
Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [12] you wrote:
I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [13] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.
However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:
Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [14], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. ( User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).
Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.
Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)