Welcome!
Hello, Ultra snozbarg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Moonraker (
talk)
20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In conformal welding, please note that in non- TeX mathematical notation, one should italicize variables but not parentheses or other delimiters and not digits. The point is to be consistent with the style used by TeX. See WP:MOSMATH. Also, in accordance with WP:MOS, I changed a hyphen for a range of pages to an en-dash. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello again.
Please note my recent edits to defect operator. I think the phrase "In operator theory," fails to tell the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. "In geometry" or "In algebra" or "In number theory", etc., is fine, but the typical non-mathematician does not know what operator theory is (nor topology, nor category theory, etc.). Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Your edits in mathematics have followed my own and it is therefore highly likely that your account is an alternative account of the community banned editor Echigo mole. It is highly unlikley that a random editor would follow another user's edits in that way. You followed the article oscillator representation, Littlewood subordination theorem, Contraction (operator theory) and Weyl–von Neumann theorem, in the latter case creating a trolling fork article on the same day I created the original article. There is a report concerning you on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Indeed it would seem that you reported yourself. Mathsci ( talk) 23:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Ultra snozbarg ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have just returned to find that I was blocked while I was away. I finally tracked down the discussion and it seems that I have been confused with the astonishingly energetic Echigo Mole (it's not quite clear but bizarrely Mole seems to have deliberately involved me himself). As far as I can tell, the only reason given at the discussion was "CU is not particularly helpful, behaviour will have to be the deciding factor" (what does that mean exactly?) from WilliamH followed by a severe critique of my edits from Mathsci. He seems to be outraged that I created articles in his area of expertise ("sock-trolled", "brainless exercise", "trolling fork" and so on). Actually I don't think they are that bad, but he is entitled to edit them if he wishes, as indeed we all are, and did completely rewrite one that I had started, and I don't mind saying that the result is an improvement. Unfrotunately I was not around to take part in the discussion and make my point. Anyway, however bad my articles are, and as I say I don't think they were as bad as he says, I don't think I should be banned for it without a discussion on their merits. So please can I continue to edit? In the interests of harmony I will try to avoid anything that Mathsci might take exception to -- if I do inadvertently cross his path again I apologise in advance and would only ask that he discuss matters with me first before having me banned again.
Decline reason:
Was blocked based on being a "perfect WP:DUCK" (i.e. behavorial evidence), and I don't see any contrary evidence that would convince me this is not Echigo mole. Also WP:NOTTHEM. The Bushranger One ping only 13:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ultra snozbarg ( talk) 06:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Mathsci for providing some details of the case he has against my edits. I will address his points individually, but omit occasional words such as "troll", "creep", "liar", "fake" which do not seem to add value to the discussion. I also omit points which seem to relate to some other editor.
In summary, Mathsci dislikes my edits and, perhaps, the fact that I have edited in the same area as him. No other editor has found fault with my articles or my edits. Is it not clear that Mathsci's opinion of my work is entirely coloured by his starting assumption that I can only be a troll, rather than an objective judgement. Still, as I say, if I am allowed to resume editing, as a sign of goodwill I will voluntarily agree to stay clear of these subjects in future and trust that there will be no further cause for friction between us. Ultra snozbarg ( talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear. There seems to be no prospect at all of being unblocked. It is highly likely that the talk page access of this disruptive troll sock is revoked. Mathsci ( talk) 19:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Ultra snozbarg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Moonraker (
talk)
20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In conformal welding, please note that in non- TeX mathematical notation, one should italicize variables but not parentheses or other delimiters and not digits. The point is to be consistent with the style used by TeX. See WP:MOSMATH. Also, in accordance with WP:MOS, I changed a hyphen for a range of pages to an en-dash. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello again.
Please note my recent edits to defect operator. I think the phrase "In operator theory," fails to tell the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. "In geometry" or "In algebra" or "In number theory", etc., is fine, but the typical non-mathematician does not know what operator theory is (nor topology, nor category theory, etc.). Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Your edits in mathematics have followed my own and it is therefore highly likely that your account is an alternative account of the community banned editor Echigo mole. It is highly unlikley that a random editor would follow another user's edits in that way. You followed the article oscillator representation, Littlewood subordination theorem, Contraction (operator theory) and Weyl–von Neumann theorem, in the latter case creating a trolling fork article on the same day I created the original article. There is a report concerning you on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Indeed it would seem that you reported yourself. Mathsci ( talk) 23:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Ultra snozbarg ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have just returned to find that I was blocked while I was away. I finally tracked down the discussion and it seems that I have been confused with the astonishingly energetic Echigo Mole (it's not quite clear but bizarrely Mole seems to have deliberately involved me himself). As far as I can tell, the only reason given at the discussion was "CU is not particularly helpful, behaviour will have to be the deciding factor" (what does that mean exactly?) from WilliamH followed by a severe critique of my edits from Mathsci. He seems to be outraged that I created articles in his area of expertise ("sock-trolled", "brainless exercise", "trolling fork" and so on). Actually I don't think they are that bad, but he is entitled to edit them if he wishes, as indeed we all are, and did completely rewrite one that I had started, and I don't mind saying that the result is an improvement. Unfrotunately I was not around to take part in the discussion and make my point. Anyway, however bad my articles are, and as I say I don't think they were as bad as he says, I don't think I should be banned for it without a discussion on their merits. So please can I continue to edit? In the interests of harmony I will try to avoid anything that Mathsci might take exception to -- if I do inadvertently cross his path again I apologise in advance and would only ask that he discuss matters with me first before having me banned again.
Decline reason:
Was blocked based on being a "perfect WP:DUCK" (i.e. behavorial evidence), and I don't see any contrary evidence that would convince me this is not Echigo mole. Also WP:NOTTHEM. The Bushranger One ping only 13:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ultra snozbarg ( talk) 06:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Mathsci for providing some details of the case he has against my edits. I will address his points individually, but omit occasional words such as "troll", "creep", "liar", "fake" which do not seem to add value to the discussion. I also omit points which seem to relate to some other editor.
In summary, Mathsci dislikes my edits and, perhaps, the fact that I have edited in the same area as him. No other editor has found fault with my articles or my edits. Is it not clear that Mathsci's opinion of my work is entirely coloured by his starting assumption that I can only be a troll, rather than an objective judgement. Still, as I say, if I am allowed to resume editing, as a sign of goodwill I will voluntarily agree to stay clear of these subjects in future and trust that there will be no further cause for friction between us. Ultra snozbarg ( talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear. There seems to be no prospect at all of being unblocked. It is highly likely that the talk page access of this disruptive troll sock is revoked. Mathsci ( talk) 19:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)