Hi Sebastian. I just need to register (again) my strong objection to =^def. This is a non-standard symbol, replacing standard symbols which are clear enough, and should be supplemented with words, anyway. I don't think a sufficiently broad poll was taken; even within that poll, it doesn't look like a consensus has been reached. I really dislike seeing this appear everywhere. I've commented more on the discussion page. -- MOBle 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sebastian, please do not alter any more thermodynamics or statistical mechanics articles to include the =^def symbol instead of \equiv. There is no consensus on \equiv, and standard texts do not use this new symbol you have introduced but do use \equiv. This jihad against symbols that have been used for decades if not a century in the standard literature must end. If you feel the usage of \equiv is not sufficiently widely understood, then you should feel free to explain in the prose what it means. I will repeat, there is not a consensus to do this, as is evinced by the large number of people who have not agreed. Consensus doesn't mean "listen to some people and not others". Mass changes, especially in subjects that have used this notation for long periods of time, are not reasonable without said consensus. -- Pmetzger 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to drop you a note and let you know that I appreciate your civility. While I disagree with your views on the notation initiative we've been discussing, I also appreciate the fact that you've patiently explained your position again and again and that you haven't lost your cool with some of the editors who have gotten a bit vehement. Thanks! VectorPosse 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You have been named as a party in the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-03 Equiv versus Equal-Def mediation. Do you wish to participate in this voluntary, informal mediation with me as your mediator? Alan.ca
Good afternoon ( GMT time); there is currently a medcabal case in progress concerning a dispute at WikiProject Maths between yourself and User:Pmetzger. I invite you to participate in the discussions at the case page, so we can try to hear out both yourself and Pmetzger.
The Med Cabal is completely informal and we only aim to bring about peaceful resolutions and/or compromises, where both sides will be completely heard out. We hope to see you over there soon!
Cheers and regards,
Anthony
cfc 13:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Date/time (UTC) | What happened (Feel Free to Edit) | PMetzger's comment | Sebastian's comment | comments by others |
---|---|---|---|---|
18 October 2006 | Sebastian asks about a formula in which he understands \equiv as identity (insert ref). It turns out that it was meant as a definition. | I thought that if I misunderstand this, as a Master of Physics, so will others. It may, however be because I studied in another country. | ||
04:58, 19 October 2006 | Sebastian asks on WT:MATH how to solve such problems. | I was following Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Think of the reader | ||
(in between) | Long discussion ensues with many participants. Sebastian creates a list of articles that may need to be changed, and several people go through it and improve articles by manually explaining definitions. | |||
21:00, 27 October 2006 | Sebastian gets impatient with progress so far and proposes “replacing "\equiv" with ":=" wherever applicable”. He eventually agrees with majority that =^def is preferable. | Given that I chose =^def specifically because it was the symbol preferred by the majority, I really question the validity of a case that frames the issue as What's going on?: "So, some folks got in their head ... [and] decided to invent their own new notation" | ||
20:49, 1 November 2006 | Discussion dies down after Henning Makholm speaks up against using "\equiv" for definitions. | I had interpreted this as a support of my plan, but I now realize that this was a mistake. However, it clearly is an argument against johnpseudo's plan (see below). | ||
22 November 2006 | Sebastian starts implementing the plan of replacing "\equiv" with "=^def" wherever applicable. | I felt I had waited long enough after discussion had died down. | ||
19:50, 25 November 2006 | MOBle raises concerns about =^def; Sebastian immediately agrees to stop with the edits. | |||
00:31, 4 December 2006 | Pmetzger asks Sebastian to stop here | This was absurd, since I already had stopped a week before | ||
15:47, 6 December 2006 | johnpseudo proposes plan "for reverting non-math changes", but finds more opposition than support | This seems to be the same plan that Pmetzger is trying to push with this mediation case | ||
... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
The purpose of mediation is to prevent dispute, not continue it. I wish I could just make everyone disengage - but that is not possible. So we will meditate - all of us: everyone included in the dispute. That includes you - and pmetzger - and we will not successfully resolve this if you are not involved. Therefore I issue you with a plea - please continue with the mediation - please contribute your ideas for compromise, and please make a real effort to settle this dispute. That is all I ask. Anthony cfc 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
(Original section title was: Mediation Committee)
Further to your numerous requests to "clarify what dispute we are trying to resolve", I have requested Pmgetzer to draw up a concise summary of the dispute. Pending this, however, I am going to ask if you have actually read the Case Page's summary of the dispute, located here.
Regards, Anthony cfc [ T • C 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
(Original section title was: Mediation Cabal case)
Good morning ( GMT time); I have posted a rather lengthy and important reply at the Mediation Cabal case page ( WP:MEDCABAL/Equiv vs Equal Def).
Regards,
Anthony
cfc [
T •
C 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sebastian. I just need to register (again) my strong objection to =^def. This is a non-standard symbol, replacing standard symbols which are clear enough, and should be supplemented with words, anyway. I don't think a sufficiently broad poll was taken; even within that poll, it doesn't look like a consensus has been reached. I really dislike seeing this appear everywhere. I've commented more on the discussion page. -- MOBle 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sebastian, please do not alter any more thermodynamics or statistical mechanics articles to include the =^def symbol instead of \equiv. There is no consensus on \equiv, and standard texts do not use this new symbol you have introduced but do use \equiv. This jihad against symbols that have been used for decades if not a century in the standard literature must end. If you feel the usage of \equiv is not sufficiently widely understood, then you should feel free to explain in the prose what it means. I will repeat, there is not a consensus to do this, as is evinced by the large number of people who have not agreed. Consensus doesn't mean "listen to some people and not others". Mass changes, especially in subjects that have used this notation for long periods of time, are not reasonable without said consensus. -- Pmetzger 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to drop you a note and let you know that I appreciate your civility. While I disagree with your views on the notation initiative we've been discussing, I also appreciate the fact that you've patiently explained your position again and again and that you haven't lost your cool with some of the editors who have gotten a bit vehement. Thanks! VectorPosse 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You have been named as a party in the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-03 Equiv versus Equal-Def mediation. Do you wish to participate in this voluntary, informal mediation with me as your mediator? Alan.ca
Good afternoon ( GMT time); there is currently a medcabal case in progress concerning a dispute at WikiProject Maths between yourself and User:Pmetzger. I invite you to participate in the discussions at the case page, so we can try to hear out both yourself and Pmetzger.
The Med Cabal is completely informal and we only aim to bring about peaceful resolutions and/or compromises, where both sides will be completely heard out. We hope to see you over there soon!
Cheers and regards,
Anthony
cfc 13:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Date/time (UTC) | What happened (Feel Free to Edit) | PMetzger's comment | Sebastian's comment | comments by others |
---|---|---|---|---|
18 October 2006 | Sebastian asks about a formula in which he understands \equiv as identity (insert ref). It turns out that it was meant as a definition. | I thought that if I misunderstand this, as a Master of Physics, so will others. It may, however be because I studied in another country. | ||
04:58, 19 October 2006 | Sebastian asks on WT:MATH how to solve such problems. | I was following Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Think of the reader | ||
(in between) | Long discussion ensues with many participants. Sebastian creates a list of articles that may need to be changed, and several people go through it and improve articles by manually explaining definitions. | |||
21:00, 27 October 2006 | Sebastian gets impatient with progress so far and proposes “replacing "\equiv" with ":=" wherever applicable”. He eventually agrees with majority that =^def is preferable. | Given that I chose =^def specifically because it was the symbol preferred by the majority, I really question the validity of a case that frames the issue as What's going on?: "So, some folks got in their head ... [and] decided to invent their own new notation" | ||
20:49, 1 November 2006 | Discussion dies down after Henning Makholm speaks up against using "\equiv" for definitions. | I had interpreted this as a support of my plan, but I now realize that this was a mistake. However, it clearly is an argument against johnpseudo's plan (see below). | ||
22 November 2006 | Sebastian starts implementing the plan of replacing "\equiv" with "=^def" wherever applicable. | I felt I had waited long enough after discussion had died down. | ||
19:50, 25 November 2006 | MOBle raises concerns about =^def; Sebastian immediately agrees to stop with the edits. | |||
00:31, 4 December 2006 | Pmetzger asks Sebastian to stop here | This was absurd, since I already had stopped a week before | ||
15:47, 6 December 2006 | johnpseudo proposes plan "for reverting non-math changes", but finds more opposition than support | This seems to be the same plan that Pmetzger is trying to push with this mediation case | ||
... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
The purpose of mediation is to prevent dispute, not continue it. I wish I could just make everyone disengage - but that is not possible. So we will meditate - all of us: everyone included in the dispute. That includes you - and pmetzger - and we will not successfully resolve this if you are not involved. Therefore I issue you with a plea - please continue with the mediation - please contribute your ideas for compromise, and please make a real effort to settle this dispute. That is all I ask. Anthony cfc 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
(Original section title was: Mediation Committee)
Further to your numerous requests to "clarify what dispute we are trying to resolve", I have requested Pmgetzer to draw up a concise summary of the dispute. Pending this, however, I am going to ask if you have actually read the Case Page's summary of the dispute, located here.
Regards, Anthony cfc [ T • C 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
(Original section title was: Mediation Cabal case)
Good morning ( GMT time); I have posted a rather lengthy and important reply at the Mediation Cabal case page ( WP:MEDCABAL/Equiv vs Equal Def).
Regards,
Anthony
cfc [
T •
C 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)