User talk:C S

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Create new discussions in sections (use the + tab at the top). It might take a while for a response.

Contents

[edit] Annals of Mathematics

Hi; sorry for the long-delayed response. I never did get a response from JSTOR about the relationship between The Analyst and the Annals of Mathematics, but I did find a 1932 journal article in Scripta Mathematica that says of the Analyst:

"And although the ill health of the editor forced its discontinuance at the end of 1883, its influence was by no means ended, for plans were laid which led to the foundation of the Annals of Mathematics in March, 1884, as a continuation of the Analyst."

I've added it as a source to the article. I'm not sure this is conclusive, but it's at least more convincing than the mostly circumstantial evidence that was there before, since it's a citable explicit claim. It's probably somewhat subjective whether we should treat them as separate journals or a continuation. --Delirium (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Apologies...

...for the whole Wiener sausage issue. Udonknome (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You may want to remove your comment from Talk: Wiener sausage though. --C S (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articlehistory

I'm not sure what you were aiming for here, but there is no such action at Template:Articlehistory. I removed the edit to clear the articlehistory error category. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at WPM

Hi CS, thanks for your comments on the Math project talk page, although I honestly didn't understand what lesson should have I drawn from this series of unpleasant encounters with MathSci. In any case, I have decided that peace of mind is more important to me than prevailing over an editor in love with himself and his writing, even if this decision results in objectively poorer quality articles on wikipedia. Arcfrk (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arcfrk, it's been a while. I think as far as "lessons" go, you need to learn not to be put off by unpleasantness by other editors. Now, I say "need" but of course, I don't mean to tell you how to behave! But I know that Wikipedia needs contributors like you, and so in that sense, you really do "need" to learn to be persistent and hold your ground. Don't be put off by people's remarks toward you.
It's hard for me to gauge the history between you two, and pretty much impossible, I think, to get an accurate feeling of how things got like this. I don't believe mere perusing of edits will help much, since it's all about timing and context. But, it looks to me that, for example, on orbifold, you made some good points and made them well. I don't see a response from Mathsci, so I expect you should be able to implement some of the changes you suggested. There's no need to walk away simply because of one rather brief exchange. Right now I'm doing taxes, but I hope to stop by on the orbifold talk page sometime.
I think mathematics and Wikipedia have one thing in common. In both, even if someone says you are wrong on the basis of little evidence to the contrary, the best thing is to respond in a matter of factual way, explaining why you said what you said, and why this person may not be understanding such and such. In other words, it's best to get a bit of a thicker skin, and not get affronted by those who may be somewhat "in your face". Mathematicians and Wikipedians alike have a tendency for bluntness, after all.
There are a couple observations I think are relevant and I hope you will find helpful. One is that in the past, I think you may have reacted badly to some bluntness and then inadvertently escalated the situation by saying something like "removing Mathsci's errors" in an edit summary or two. Clearly, that's not going to help. Another thing is that Mathsci tends to ignore completely the possibility that s/he is editing from a particular POV; this is relatively obvious from the von Neumann and orbifold discussions. But I believe s/he is learning. If you compare the behavior from early on to now, I think you will notice a positive change. Some people take longer to catch on to what it means to collaborate together on Wikipedia. Rather than sink into increasing negativity and grudges against other editors (which unfortunately I see more and more of), I would like to see more experienced Wikipedians helping the newbies through their growing pains. --C S (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks but why did you wait so long?

Thank you for archiving the discussion. I had privately emailed Arthur Rubin to archive the meaningless discussion on WPM, which was almost driving me to delete all my mathematics contributions to WP and leave WP, which I am still contemplating doing. With administrators present, Michellecrisp should not have been allowed to hijack the discussion as she did.

On a more positive note, User:R.e.b. warned me in private about this thread and attempted to delete one of Michellecrisp's provocative unprompted posts on my talk page. He at least understood what she was up to. Another unrelated positive note: I now have, this time anonymously, another Fields Medallist leaving private notes for me on my talk page. So believe it or not there are some vestiges of civilization left on WP. I am disappointed that mathematics administrators allowed Michellecrisp to troll for so long on WPM. But presumably many of them are 21 year olds like sadly departed User:Cheeser1, who started the whole thing rolling. Mathsci (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I believe all of the mathematics admins are well over 21, although I don't know about Cheeser1. Perhaps this random potshot at an entire group of people you don't seem to acquainted with shouldn't surprise me. In general, you seem to have a big problem with being considerate to others unless they are wearing their Fields Medal. Part of my reasoning for archiving the page was to stop you from digging yourself into a bigger hole. Your comments don't put you in a good light (no matter how many smileys you put at the end of them), and I wager everybody's opinion of you was decreasing the more you said. --C S (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for wrapping up the "problem editor" thread on WPM

-- Dominus (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor)

I saw your comment at User talk:Cbrown1023 regarding the "no consensus" closure of this AfD.‎ You may want to participate in the deletion review discussion of this AfD at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27#John Dwyer (professor). I am still rather upset about what happened here. Sock/meatpuppets should not be able to hijack an AfD like they did in this case; making sure that things like that do not happen is what we have admins for. I don't know if you comment about finding even "one admin to agree" is correct (one never quite knows). But, in any event, it is more important to have this closure decision overturned. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article confusion

Thank you for considering knot theory for featured article status. On the Wikiproject Mathematics talk page, you mentioned some issues that many people have had with featured article reviews for mathematics articles. Could you please explain what these are, maybe point out some examples that didn't go over to well. Thanks -- Jkasd 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jkasd! Sorry if I sounded snappish earlier. I'll try and find some good examples, but right now what you can do is look at the WP:WPM page and note the former featured articles section. Currently there are 16 FAs, and 17 former FAs. If you click on the discussions, you can see why they were delisted. You should be able to get a good idea of what reviewers are concerned about. I think Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Game_theory/archive1, a recent one, is particularly instructive. Reading through it, it's hard for me to believe it was delisted. Another interesting example (more relevant to the accessibility issue) is Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Introduction_to_general_relativity, which is an example of an article that did make it to FA, but took some arguing. The basic gist of the opposition was that the article was too accessible! Actually, I had forgotten I commented in this one (look near the bottom). Luckily, this FA will make it more likely that other "introduction" articles will also be able to make it to FA, but I believe some other articles failed before this, because of the same issues. I'll see if I can find failed FACs, since I think those are the most instructive. --C S (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment

I apologize if there is an inference of sockpuppetry. I had forgotten that the allegation had been raised. I went ahead and reverted all my edits - if that helps. English Subtitle (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The opposite of epicaricacy

An Olive branch
An Olive branch

The debate on the article has been rather heated, and has been a waste of resources and time. I disagree with your interpretation, but hope we all walk away from this with no hard feelings. Cordially, --evrik (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this, which is why I didn't bring up some of the related concerns that have troubled me. I don't know what you mean by my "interpretation"; I understand how dictionaries work. In particular, I understand that entries in an English dictionary are for words in the English language, not other languages. By the way, Sur de Filadelfia is behaving quite strangely and detrimentally. If you know this person, I suggest having a talk with him or her. --C S (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly notice

Only can admin can remove a {{copyvio}} I will report this to the Admins if you revert it again. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear by now that you're trolling. Call an admin if you like. I would think it's better that you avoid the attention of the admins though, if you know what I mean. I will be removing the tag, as that is clearly in the best interest of Wikipedia. --C S (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fan letter

I just want to express my admiration for the incisive, yet tactful, analysis you offered in your most recent comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicaricacy‎. It's certainly much better than anything I'd be able to produce, taciturn old curmudgeon that I am. If you ever decide you want to be an admin, you'll have my support (assuming that I'm still around). Deor (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. --C S (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You betcha.  :)

I honestly didn't know what to think at first, given your edit history. You sure got me good! This site needs some real humor sometimes. Have fun and thanks for clueing me in! Clueless, I remain, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Shame on you

I just wanted to tell you personally, that your comments are mean spirited. Perhaps you can explain why you feel this is necessary? It is the truth what I said to you about learning respect. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

Hi. I had no idea it had previously been prodded. I considered speedying it, as no notability claim certainly makes it eligible for speedy. As it is, I'll AfD it. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See my AfD nom. I guess his motivations mirrored mine. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A detail in math notation style

Hello. Notice that in average crossing number I changed n(v) to n(v). Punctuation and digits in non-TeX math notation should not be italicized. That matches TeX style: TeX italicizes variables but not parentheses or other punctuation and not digits. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've not been very good about learning these guidelines, so your help is appreciated. I'll put in a bigger effort on learning the MoS. --C S (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of knot theory topics

I've added Average crossing number to the list of knot theory topics. If you know of any other articles that should be there and are not, could you add those? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines on how to manage and arrange this kind of list? I presume the advantage of lists is that they can give additional information based on their organization compared to categories. I note that list of geometric topology topics has some organization that I think is a good start for the knot theory list. I'll work a bit on the knot theory list later. --C S (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, what is the purpose of also making the links to the talk pages that don't show up? Is that just a by-product of how you're adding items or is there a useful function behind it? --C S (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)