Welcome, Ramsey2006!
It was a joy to read your contribution to the Ramsey theory article, and especially to view your nice illustration. You seem fairly advanced for a beginner; am I right in surmising that you've had some prior wikipedia and mathematics experience?
I've got an idea of contributing a little myself to the article, when I get around to it. I think that as this is supposed to be an encyclopædian article, there should be some mentioning of the context of the original theorems (Theorems A and B in his "On a problem of formal logic"), and also a mentioning of the fact that the infinite and hypergraph variants are in fact original, not later extensions. Do you have any comments? JoergenB 23:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you never did any wiki work before, your start was an even better achievement. You must have the habit of reading and understanding instructions - so, again, that indicates a practiced mathematician :-)
I discovered wikipedia just a couple of months ago, which is another reason I didn't put a 'Welcome' template on your talk page; but since you are new, perhaps I should look it up. It does contain some links and advices; but perhaps you've already found it elsewhere.
I've access to a good mathematical library (at the University of Stockholm), which I found sometimes is a great advantage on the wiki, too. Ramsey's article is in Proc. London Math. Soc. 30 (1930), pp. 264-286. (Actually, I never read it before, either.) Of course he doesn't use the term hypergraph; he talks about colouring all those sub-classes of [the given class] which have exactly r members.
So, you have the full right to remain anonymous and do not need to answer; but if I understand your comment about your own work correctly, I'd guess your surname starts with F, K, or R... JoergenB 12:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference!
I'll send a letter outside the wiki system for OR related stuff. One of the things I decided I have to learn about is Graham numbers; the thing is contradictory as it stands; and there is some confusion about what Graham (and Rotschild) really did or didn't do. I wrote a little 'correction' which unhappily was not quite correct, either, so I've started tryinng to assimilate the Graham-Rotschild theorem. I've already found out that the article covers both the (Euclidean space) cube example and the (GF(2) space) secretary one, although they are different and may lead to different estimates. Moreover, even if the interest among wikipedians and readers center among the enormous numbers, I think that the Graham-Rotschild theorem itself should be stressed more, and in particular the fact that both Ramsey's (finite) theorem and van der Waerden's theorem are special cases. JoergenB 18:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There are some good tips at Wikipedia:Talk pages. Splitting comments makes it hard to follow who is saying what. - Will Beback · † · 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
3RR warning for Elvira Arellano
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Elvira Arellano. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. — Wknight94 ( talk) 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
don't do this unless you've actually added talk to the discussion page concerning your edit. Its dishonest otherwise.- Psychohistorian 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I clicked on undo to undo your edit which removed my original sentence. The edit summary must have been generated automatically by the software. I didn't write it. You should refrain from insults and from accusing fellow editors of dishonesty. -- Ramsey2006
the Salt Cathedral in Zipaquira?.--(( F3rn4nd0 )) (BLA BLA BLA) 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- This one, in fact Salt Cathedral. It would be nice if u upload the pics to Commons, in order to use them at eswiki-- ometzit<col> 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)-- ometzit<col> 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm unable to apply the exemption for unsourced critical material about living people in this case because you did not claim it, and the material was sourced. In a revert war administrators have to treat each side fairly. Sam Blacketer 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
checking timestamp-- Ramsey2006 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Reminder: This also applies to
Illegal immigration.
·:·
Will Beback
·:· 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Just checking. -- evrik ( talk) 16:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ramsey2006, quit lying in your revert messages. I clearly stated my reason for the change. It was not vandalism... and you know it. You even made a new page for Saul to accomodate the Mexican American angle to this story. Furthermore, the article itself does not include the category Mexican-American so why, pray tell, should the Discussion page? Actually, what you have done is more akin to vandalism: "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If you lie again in your revert messages and/or add information back that you KNOW to be false i.e. Mexican-American, I will seek to have you blocked. Consider this your one and only warning. Lordpathogen 20:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
NOTICE: Existing disputes in Elvira Arellano article submitted for mediation
- User:Evrik and User:Ramsey2006, I have made a Request for Mediation here. -- LordPathogen 15:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Elvira Arellano, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- LordPathogen 16:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
|
A
Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage,
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Elvira Arellano.
|
You are hereby advised that
a formal request for Arbitration has been initiated by me regarding the article on
Elvira Arellano.
LordPathogen 17:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
User:129.33.49.251, you will be
blocked from editing.
LordPathogen 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC) (please stop)
Please do not place incorrect information on this user page again. The SP case was already adjudicated and it was found this IP was not a sock-puppet. If you persist in placing it there in spite of that ruling, I will be forced to report you for vandalism.
LordPathogen 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- At the same time he warns you for being a vandal for adding the tag back in here, he incorrectly removes a tag here. Gotta love his chutzpah. ---- evrik ( talk) 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. On your question about 'mother' - I actually agree. I am opposed to the term. My concern is to keep Wikipedia NPOV and simply to state the facts with reliable sources. I don't see actual consensus in the media for calling the term 'pejorative' or qualifying the term as such when it is used as other pejoratives are often qualified for example the N word. That said, I do welcome your contribution - if consensus moves away from my compromise thats okay - but I feel the best for Wikipedia is to remain neutral until national consensus is reached and to indicate within the article that the term is considered 'pejorative' (with reliable sources indicating this or quoted as such) as well as the others using it without pejorative meaning (with reliable sources indicating such) - which allows the reader of the article to know of the situation and to make up their own minds. If you can think of a way to do this which might provide for both views let us or me know. Best wishes, -- Northmeister 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC) -PS. the order has been restored to the comments section in precise order of entry but with different indentations so your answer is clarified to be to Richwales not myself. Sorry about the screw-up with indentation. My comments to yours are indented to allow for flow of commentary. -- Northmeister 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep changing the order of discussion? It is proper Wikipedia standard to keep the order in time and on the same indentation as other comments to the same question. My original comments were to Richwales - hence they come before yours to him. Then my comments to you are indented further. We keep this format to ease the discussion and to keep track of who is commenting to who. -- Northmeister 14:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've re-ordered the comments to allow for your order to take place and without compromising the timeline of the discussion or the flow for the reader who wishes to comment. Best wishes, -- Northmeister 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for restoring the original order. -- Ramsey2006 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your welcome, your post was an easy fix. Best wishes, -- Northmeister 16:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking you to remove the personal insult of the 'parable' at Anchor Baby and to offer me an apology for your conduct there. We should never insult other editors in the manner you've done - in general society if this would be done - I'd consider the 'parable' a libel and slander if spoken. Personal attacks have no place at Wikipedia, and when we give into our worse natures; it is best to show some respect when called upon and apologize. I have no personal issues with you or your views. My concern is Wikipedia and reliable NPOV articles. Please refrain from personal insults in the future. -- Northmeister 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I still requesting removal of the inappropriate personal insult. Beyond that, whether it was funny (and it was) is not the point. It's being used to insult me as it addresses my concerns at that page. It further insinuates I consider you or others 'evil' - putting me in the same league as President Bush and his way of thinking - well thats really insulting (lol). I don't consider you evil or your views. I actually agree with you. We however, have a different approach to this "Anchor Baby" article. Show some good faith and remove the commentary however intentioned as I consider it a personal insult - and work with me to address your concerns over the edits and mine with yours. My main concern is to give balance to your edits to keep NPOV and to have a section that actually pertains to what is addressed in the opening paragraphs per WP:MOS. Let's get this resolved cordially and peacefully. -- Northmeister 23:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your parable is insightful and relevant to many editing disputes I've seen, including more than one in which I was the "benevolent editor". I recommend you work it up and post it among the Wikipedia:Essays. In the meantime, it might be best situated on a user page, like User talk:Ramsey2006/Parable. We've all read it now and you could still leave a discrete link. Another editor is aggravated by it and there's nothing to be gained by continuing the aggravation. In a more generic setting I'm sure other editors will see its wisdom without taking it personally. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he's still at it - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (2nd). JScott06 16:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, it is a clearer photo, so i'll upload it to replace the original one. Muntuwandi 02:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If it makes sense, you can go ahead and do it yourself. You generally don't need to ask the closing admin for something so trivial. Cheers, east.718 at 17:34, 11/5/2007
Recently (as you know!) the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages, e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review at this deletion review log item. Pete St.John 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ramsey2006, your contribution at the deletion review is elegant, concise, calm, clear, pointed, ...are you really a mathematician? not a slumming English teacher? :-) thanks very much. Vaughan Pratt asked why we should care, I'll point him to your two paragraphs.
Pete St.John 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying me that the Deletion Review went "oveturn". Unfortunately, I've just now been notified that the Deletion Review has been rescinded. I have not caught up, I only just now logged in since answering the last round of charges on Friday. I expect that I will compile a chronology (Pete campaigning, Pete being shown canvassing guidelines, Pete canvassing according to those guidelines, Pete being thtreatened with banning, Pete answering the threats, Pete stopping campaigning, the vote to overturn, the rescind) or particulars from mine and the threatening parties contribution histories. But it will take me awhile to catch up. Pete St.John 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. should I request arbitration? I'd appreciate advice. I've been in flamewars since telnet but this is new to me.
Pete St.John 16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your response at my talk page. Not surprisingly, perhaps, I had more to say there in response to your advice but meanwhile, just thanks :-) Pete St.John 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've started an outline of a case for arbitration, at this spot in my user space. It's a bit better than the notes, but it's still hard for me to restrain rhetoric. And there's an awful lot of specifics that I need to glean from many pages and their revision histories. But as inadequate as it currently is, I'd welcome your dropping by for a look see anytime. I plan to ask for broader help after it's better fleshed out and organized, and to open for rebuttal later than that, all before actually posting to RfA. Pete St.John 23:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Ramsey, I dropped a note at Johntex's talk, he's the admin who ruled in favor of consensus on the DRV of Eagle Scout category. I'm thinking it's much safer to PO a few thousand mathematicians than a few million boy scouts. Meanwhile, I'll be slow about my Case until after the Holidays. I mean to be inexorable, and thorough, not speedy. There is too much mass of material to be speedy, anyway. (And um, yeah, I meant it's compuationally less expensive to partially-order a few thousand...:-) Pete St.John ( talk) 19:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have noticed that you are also into Ramsey theory (and perhaps not just casually). I am as well, and I've got an interest in doing some work on articles about Ramsey theory, particular those on the integers (I'm not very good with graph theory). Once my semester ends I graduate, and so I'll probably have a fair deal of spare time to exercise my brain by working on some of these articles (e.g. Schur's theorem, van der Waerden's theorem, Rado number). So I thought I'd drop you a line and see if you were interested in working on any Ramsey theory stuf too - I find contributing on Wikipedia is much harder when I'm the only one working on an article. Plus you know, I wouldn't want to go off and create/expand a bunch of articles if there's no real interest in them. So let me know if you're interested, maybe we can generate a list of articles that could be expanded/improved (and perhaps what to do for each). PS the error on the board is "16+16+16+16+2=50" (you're off by 16). -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Next week is finals week here, and I'm going to be out of the country over the winter break, probably without reliable internet access most of the time. I do have an interest in Ramsey theory (hence my name), so this is something that we should discuss in January. You are right about the error. The 16 on the left should not be there. It represents 16 vertices in the blue oval to the left of the dotted line, which is just a copy of the blue oval on the far right, and so should not have been counted twice. I drew the pictures in a hurry. -- Ramsey2006 04:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Just FYI, a new editor is jumping onto the Anchor baby article. Since you were part of last summer's discussion about this article, I wanted to be sure you were aware, in case you might have dropped it from your watch list but wanted to say something now. Richwales ( talk) 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind. I put a quote on my userpage from a post of yours. [1] "As a mathematician, I get to just make stuff up and publish it in peer-reviewed journals, so it counts as a primary source." I like it. I was originally going to place this as the second quote on my userpage, underneath "Mathematicians make up the rules as they go along" from Fearless Symmetry, but in the time it took me to get around to putting it up, two other quotes got in there somehow and took the conversation off on another tangent, so I had to start a separate section for it. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Semi protection of Illegal immigration to the United States
I have requested semi-protection for the Illegal immigration to the United States article. A question came up in the discussion on the talk page about the multiple IP addresses you reported to be owned by User:Psychohistorian. I would appreciate your input. Terjen ( talk) 14:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You'll note, if you count, that I never made three reverts. My changes involved sigificant additions and changes to what was there before, and always in the interest of compromise. You can note, also, that the changes from other users are simple reverts with no attempt at compromise. Ha ha, what a witch hunt you guys are on with me -- I'm not absolutist in any way . . . I'm just trying to make sure the debate (one which, between you and me, I don't particularly care about one way or another) is at least noted in the article. Jkatzen ( talk) 17:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I also see, from reading this page, that you've been accused of vandalism and pure reverts in the past, entirely ignoring the views of other people. I'd request that you afford me some respect when discussing and acting on these issues. Jkatzen ( talk) 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think we understand your point, but you need to talk about it, not do things that are probably just going to get you blocked for no good purpose. Richwales ( talk) 01:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The renaming of Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border is up for a new vote. Terjen ( talk) 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking at your userpage, I'm hopeless at trying to find the error in the first picture :-)
As far as the Postville raid article, there's nothing that says I have to place a tag on it and wait for someone else to speedy delete it, and it would be silly to place a tag and then delete it myself. I interpreted it as an attack on those who supervised the raid, an article created simply to disparage the raid, and as a hopelessly anti-raid POV (not to mention the idea of "raid" itself seeming rather POV) it is an attack page that can't be rectified. This is like an advertising article, which can be speedy deleted if it's a page which exclusively promotes some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic: it can get so bad that it simply needs to be deleted immediately. With no properly-done sources on the article, I couldn't tell what (if anything) was being sourced to reliable sources, except the court calendar (which obviously isn't enough to sustain the article), and the reliable sources that are being used (such as the NYT article) is being used in a totally POV way, taking the guy with the obvious anti-raid POV at his word without even listening to anyone with a pro-raid POV.
For these reasons I don't believe that the article should stand. Since you obviously believe that there should be an article on the topic, I'll give you the few sources used that are good (since most of the sources are blogs); there's no point in restoring the article, as anything that is reliably sourced will need to be rewritten completely.
- Court Calendar in the proceedings against the workers of the Agriprocessors plant.
- Resolution of the International Indian Treaty Council on Economic Justice, Fair Trade, and Economic Self Dtermination for Indigenous Peoples; the Effects of Free Trade Agreements, Immigration, and the Rights of Workers.
- An Interpreter Speaking Up for Migrants, By JULIA PRESTON
- Two alleged supervisors arrested at Agriprocessors in Postville
- [2]
Nyttend ( talk) 01:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
All deletions can be contested at WP:DRV. The raid in question was widely reported and the article appears to have been well researched and written. However it was not up to Wikipedia standards and would need substantial work. However I don't beleive that the stated reason for deletion, "G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP", was correct. I don't see any BLP issue that couldn't be solved by minor editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I consider it quite extraordinary and a breach of etiquette for you to refuse to discuss, in a condescending and insulting manner, the merits of the definition, and then, having opted out of the discussion, to revert an edit of mine on the matter. RayAYang ( talk) 03:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you are an expert in Ramsey theory. May I ask you to look over the proof in this section of a wikibook. This is about a lower bound on Ramsey numbers. I more or less worked it out on my own and am not sure whether it is correct or not. The final result is correct, but I was concerned about the intermediate steps. Thanks and regards-- Shahab ( talk) 14:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the m. I can accept with the ultimate outcome. 02:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OprahObamaDesMoines49.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B ( talk) 14:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
|
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar |
| Thanks for the R(3,3,3;2) image! Hutchison de ( talk) 21:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome, Ramsey2006!
It was a joy to read your contribution to the Ramsey theory article, and especially to view your nice illustration. You seem fairly advanced for a beginner; am I right in surmising that you've had some prior wikipedia and mathematics experience?
I've got an idea of contributing a little myself to the article, when I get around to it. I think that as this is supposed to be an encyclopædian article, there should be some mentioning of the context of the original theorems (Theorems A and B in his "On a problem of formal logic"), and also a mentioning of the fact that the infinite and hypergraph variants are in fact original, not later extensions. Do you have any comments? JoergenB 23:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you never did any wiki work before, your start was an even better achievement. You must have the habit of reading and understanding instructions - so, again, that indicates a practiced mathematician :-)
I discovered wikipedia just a couple of months ago, which is another reason I didn't put a 'Welcome' template on your talk page; but since you are new, perhaps I should look it up. It does contain some links and advices; but perhaps you've already found it elsewhere.
I've access to a good mathematical library (at the University of Stockholm), which I found sometimes is a great advantage on the wiki, too. Ramsey's article is in Proc. London Math. Soc. 30 (1930), pp. 264-286. (Actually, I never read it before, either.) Of course he doesn't use the term hypergraph; he talks about colouring all those sub-classes of [the given class] which have exactly r members.
So, you have the full right to remain anonymous and do not need to answer; but if I understand your comment about your own work correctly, I'd guess your surname starts with F, K, or R... JoergenB 12:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference!
I'll send a letter outside the wiki system for OR related stuff. One of the things I decided I have to learn about is Graham numbers; the thing is contradictory as it stands; and there is some confusion about what Graham (and Rotschild) really did or didn't do. I wrote a little 'correction' which unhappily was not quite correct, either, so I've started tryinng to assimilate the Graham-Rotschild theorem. I've already found out that the article covers both the (Euclidean space) cube example and the (GF(2) space) secretary one, although they are different and may lead to different estimates. Moreover, even if the interest among wikipedians and readers center among the enormous numbers, I think that the Graham-Rotschild theorem itself should be stressed more, and in particular the fact that both Ramsey's (finite) theorem and van der Waerden's theorem are special cases. JoergenB 18:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There are some good tips at Wikipedia:Talk pages. Splitting comments makes it hard to follow who is saying what. - Will Beback · † · 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
3RR warning for Elvira Arellano
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Elvira Arellano. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. — Wknight94 ( talk) 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
don't do this unless you've actually added talk to the discussion page concerning your edit. Its dishonest otherwise.- Psychohistorian 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I clicked on undo to undo your edit which removed my original sentence. The edit summary must have been generated automatically by the software. I didn't write it. You should refrain from insults and from accusing fellow editors of dishonesty. -- Ramsey2006
the Salt Cathedral in Zipaquira?.--(( F3rn4nd0 )) (BLA BLA BLA) 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- This one, in fact Salt Cathedral. It would be nice if u upload the pics to Commons, in order to use them at eswiki-- ometzit<col> 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)-- ometzit<col> 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm unable to apply the exemption for unsourced critical material about living people in this case because you did not claim it, and the material was sourced. In a revert war administrators have to treat each side fairly. Sam Blacketer 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
checking timestamp-- Ramsey2006 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Reminder: This also applies to
Illegal immigration.
·:·
Will Beback
·:· 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Just checking. -- evrik ( talk) 16:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ramsey2006, quit lying in your revert messages. I clearly stated my reason for the change. It was not vandalism... and you know it. You even made a new page for Saul to accomodate the Mexican American angle to this story. Furthermore, the article itself does not include the category Mexican-American so why, pray tell, should the Discussion page? Actually, what you have done is more akin to vandalism: "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If you lie again in your revert messages and/or add information back that you KNOW to be false i.e. Mexican-American, I will seek to have you blocked. Consider this your one and only warning. Lordpathogen 20:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
NOTICE: Existing disputes in Elvira Arellano article submitted for mediation
- User:Evrik and User:Ramsey2006, I have made a Request for Mediation here. -- LordPathogen 15:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Elvira Arellano, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- LordPathogen 16:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
|
|
A
Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage,
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Elvira Arellano.
|
You are hereby advised that
a formal request for Arbitration has been initiated by me regarding the article on
Elvira Arellano.
LordPathogen 17:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
User:129.33.49.251, you will be
blocked from editing.
LordPathogen 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC) (please stop)
Please do not place incorrect information on this user page again. The SP case was already adjudicated and it was found this IP was not a sock-puppet. If you persist in placing it there in spite of that ruling, I will be forced to report you for vandalism.
LordPathogen 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- At the same time he warns you for being a vandal for adding the tag back in here, he incorrectly removes a tag here. Gotta love his chutzpah. ---- evrik ( talk) 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. On your question about 'mother' - I actually agree. I am opposed to the term. My concern is to keep Wikipedia NPOV and simply to state the facts with reliable sources. I don't see actual consensus in the media for calling the term 'pejorative' or qualifying the term as such when it is used as other pejoratives are often qualified for example the N word. That said, I do welcome your contribution - if consensus moves away from my compromise thats okay - but I feel the best for Wikipedia is to remain neutral until national consensus is reached and to indicate within the article that the term is considered 'pejorative' (with reliable sources indicating this or quoted as such) as well as the others using it without pejorative meaning (with reliable sources indicating such) - which allows the reader of the article to know of the situation and to make up their own minds. If you can think of a way to do this which might provide for both views let us or me know. Best wishes, -- Northmeister 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC) -PS. the order has been restored to the comments section in precise order of entry but with different indentations so your answer is clarified to be to Richwales not myself. Sorry about the screw-up with indentation. My comments to yours are indented to allow for flow of commentary. -- Northmeister 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep changing the order of discussion? It is proper Wikipedia standard to keep the order in time and on the same indentation as other comments to the same question. My original comments were to Richwales - hence they come before yours to him. Then my comments to you are indented further. We keep this format to ease the discussion and to keep track of who is commenting to who. -- Northmeister 14:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've re-ordered the comments to allow for your order to take place and without compromising the timeline of the discussion or the flow for the reader who wishes to comment. Best wishes, -- Northmeister 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for restoring the original order. -- Ramsey2006 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your welcome, your post was an easy fix. Best wishes, -- Northmeister 16:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking you to remove the personal insult of the 'parable' at Anchor Baby and to offer me an apology for your conduct there. We should never insult other editors in the manner you've done - in general society if this would be done - I'd consider the 'parable' a libel and slander if spoken. Personal attacks have no place at Wikipedia, and when we give into our worse natures; it is best to show some respect when called upon and apologize. I have no personal issues with you or your views. My concern is Wikipedia and reliable NPOV articles. Please refrain from personal insults in the future. -- Northmeister 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I still requesting removal of the inappropriate personal insult. Beyond that, whether it was funny (and it was) is not the point. It's being used to insult me as it addresses my concerns at that page. It further insinuates I consider you or others 'evil' - putting me in the same league as President Bush and his way of thinking - well thats really insulting (lol). I don't consider you evil or your views. I actually agree with you. We however, have a different approach to this "Anchor Baby" article. Show some good faith and remove the commentary however intentioned as I consider it a personal insult - and work with me to address your concerns over the edits and mine with yours. My main concern is to give balance to your edits to keep NPOV and to have a section that actually pertains to what is addressed in the opening paragraphs per WP:MOS. Let's get this resolved cordially and peacefully. -- Northmeister 23:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your parable is insightful and relevant to many editing disputes I've seen, including more than one in which I was the "benevolent editor". I recommend you work it up and post it among the Wikipedia:Essays. In the meantime, it might be best situated on a user page, like User talk:Ramsey2006/Parable. We've all read it now and you could still leave a discrete link. Another editor is aggravated by it and there's nothing to be gained by continuing the aggravation. In a more generic setting I'm sure other editors will see its wisdom without taking it personally. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he's still at it - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (2nd). JScott06 16:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, it is a clearer photo, so i'll upload it to replace the original one. Muntuwandi 02:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If it makes sense, you can go ahead and do it yourself. You generally don't need to ask the closing admin for something so trivial. Cheers, east.718 at 17:34, 11/5/2007
Recently (as you know!) the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages, e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review at this deletion review log item. Pete St.John 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ramsey2006, your contribution at the deletion review is elegant, concise, calm, clear, pointed, ...are you really a mathematician? not a slumming English teacher? :-) thanks very much. Vaughan Pratt asked why we should care, I'll point him to your two paragraphs.
Pete St.John 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying me that the Deletion Review went "oveturn". Unfortunately, I've just now been notified that the Deletion Review has been rescinded. I have not caught up, I only just now logged in since answering the last round of charges on Friday. I expect that I will compile a chronology (Pete campaigning, Pete being shown canvassing guidelines, Pete canvassing according to those guidelines, Pete being thtreatened with banning, Pete answering the threats, Pete stopping campaigning, the vote to overturn, the rescind) or particulars from mine and the threatening parties contribution histories. But it will take me awhile to catch up. Pete St.John 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. should I request arbitration? I'd appreciate advice. I've been in flamewars since telnet but this is new to me.
Pete St.John 16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your response at my talk page. Not surprisingly, perhaps, I had more to say there in response to your advice but meanwhile, just thanks :-) Pete St.John 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've started an outline of a case for arbitration, at this spot in my user space. It's a bit better than the notes, but it's still hard for me to restrain rhetoric. And there's an awful lot of specifics that I need to glean from many pages and their revision histories. But as inadequate as it currently is, I'd welcome your dropping by for a look see anytime. I plan to ask for broader help after it's better fleshed out and organized, and to open for rebuttal later than that, all before actually posting to RfA. Pete St.John 23:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Ramsey, I dropped a note at Johntex's talk, he's the admin who ruled in favor of consensus on the DRV of Eagle Scout category. I'm thinking it's much safer to PO a few thousand mathematicians than a few million boy scouts. Meanwhile, I'll be slow about my Case until after the Holidays. I mean to be inexorable, and thorough, not speedy. There is too much mass of material to be speedy, anyway. (And um, yeah, I meant it's compuationally less expensive to partially-order a few thousand...:-) Pete St.John ( talk) 19:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have noticed that you are also into Ramsey theory (and perhaps not just casually). I am as well, and I've got an interest in doing some work on articles about Ramsey theory, particular those on the integers (I'm not very good with graph theory). Once my semester ends I graduate, and so I'll probably have a fair deal of spare time to exercise my brain by working on some of these articles (e.g. Schur's theorem, van der Waerden's theorem, Rado number). So I thought I'd drop you a line and see if you were interested in working on any Ramsey theory stuf too - I find contributing on Wikipedia is much harder when I'm the only one working on an article. Plus you know, I wouldn't want to go off and create/expand a bunch of articles if there's no real interest in them. So let me know if you're interested, maybe we can generate a list of articles that could be expanded/improved (and perhaps what to do for each). PS the error on the board is "16+16+16+16+2=50" (you're off by 16). -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Next week is finals week here, and I'm going to be out of the country over the winter break, probably without reliable internet access most of the time. I do have an interest in Ramsey theory (hence my name), so this is something that we should discuss in January. You are right about the error. The 16 on the left should not be there. It represents 16 vertices in the blue oval to the left of the dotted line, which is just a copy of the blue oval on the far right, and so should not have been counted twice. I drew the pictures in a hurry. -- Ramsey2006 04:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Just FYI, a new editor is jumping onto the Anchor baby article. Since you were part of last summer's discussion about this article, I wanted to be sure you were aware, in case you might have dropped it from your watch list but wanted to say something now. Richwales ( talk) 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind. I put a quote on my userpage from a post of yours. [1] "As a mathematician, I get to just make stuff up and publish it in peer-reviewed journals, so it counts as a primary source." I like it. I was originally going to place this as the second quote on my userpage, underneath "Mathematicians make up the rules as they go along" from Fearless Symmetry, but in the time it took me to get around to putting it up, two other quotes got in there somehow and took the conversation off on another tangent, so I had to start a separate section for it. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Semi protection of Illegal immigration to the United States
I have requested semi-protection for the Illegal immigration to the United States article. A question came up in the discussion on the talk page about the multiple IP addresses you reported to be owned by User:Psychohistorian. I would appreciate your input. Terjen ( talk) 14:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You'll note, if you count, that I never made three reverts. My changes involved sigificant additions and changes to what was there before, and always in the interest of compromise. You can note, also, that the changes from other users are simple reverts with no attempt at compromise. Ha ha, what a witch hunt you guys are on with me -- I'm not absolutist in any way . . . I'm just trying to make sure the debate (one which, between you and me, I don't particularly care about one way or another) is at least noted in the article. Jkatzen ( talk) 17:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I also see, from reading this page, that you've been accused of vandalism and pure reverts in the past, entirely ignoring the views of other people. I'd request that you afford me some respect when discussing and acting on these issues. Jkatzen ( talk) 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think we understand your point, but you need to talk about it, not do things that are probably just going to get you blocked for no good purpose. Richwales ( talk) 01:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The renaming of Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border is up for a new vote. Terjen ( talk) 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking at your userpage, I'm hopeless at trying to find the error in the first picture :-)
As far as the Postville raid article, there's nothing that says I have to place a tag on it and wait for someone else to speedy delete it, and it would be silly to place a tag and then delete it myself. I interpreted it as an attack on those who supervised the raid, an article created simply to disparage the raid, and as a hopelessly anti-raid POV (not to mention the idea of "raid" itself seeming rather POV) it is an attack page that can't be rectified. This is like an advertising article, which can be speedy deleted if it's a page which exclusively promotes some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic: it can get so bad that it simply needs to be deleted immediately. With no properly-done sources on the article, I couldn't tell what (if anything) was being sourced to reliable sources, except the court calendar (which obviously isn't enough to sustain the article), and the reliable sources that are being used (such as the NYT article) is being used in a totally POV way, taking the guy with the obvious anti-raid POV at his word without even listening to anyone with a pro-raid POV.
For these reasons I don't believe that the article should stand. Since you obviously believe that there should be an article on the topic, I'll give you the few sources used that are good (since most of the sources are blogs); there's no point in restoring the article, as anything that is reliably sourced will need to be rewritten completely.
- Court Calendar in the proceedings against the workers of the Agriprocessors plant.
- Resolution of the International Indian Treaty Council on Economic Justice, Fair Trade, and Economic Self Dtermination for Indigenous Peoples; the Effects of Free Trade Agreements, Immigration, and the Rights of Workers.
- An Interpreter Speaking Up for Migrants, By JULIA PRESTON
- Two alleged supervisors arrested at Agriprocessors in Postville
- [2]
Nyttend ( talk) 01:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
All deletions can be contested at WP:DRV. The raid in question was widely reported and the article appears to have been well researched and written. However it was not up to Wikipedia standards and would need substantial work. However I don't beleive that the stated reason for deletion, "G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP", was correct. I don't see any BLP issue that couldn't be solved by minor editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I consider it quite extraordinary and a breach of etiquette for you to refuse to discuss, in a condescending and insulting manner, the merits of the definition, and then, having opted out of the discussion, to revert an edit of mine on the matter. RayAYang ( talk) 03:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you are an expert in Ramsey theory. May I ask you to look over the proof in this section of a wikibook. This is about a lower bound on Ramsey numbers. I more or less worked it out on my own and am not sure whether it is correct or not. The final result is correct, but I was concerned about the intermediate steps. Thanks and regards-- Shahab ( talk) 14:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the m. I can accept with the ultimate outcome. 02:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OprahObamaDesMoines49.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B ( talk) 14:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
|
|
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar |
| Thanks for the R(3,3,3;2) image! Hutchison de ( talk) 21:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)