User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Related to anthroposophy

Is it possible that you could check Talk:Anthroposophy#About anthroposophical sources, please? I'm sorry that I was first unaware what "arbitration" means. Erdanion 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overdetermined system

Thanks for fleshing out overdetermined system a bit. Geometry guy 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI for academics contributing to WP

Hey, I was looking up A. V. Cicourel and found one of the few mentions of him in your userspace (I've since found him at de). Now I'm wondering, what is the "Heineken Project"? Anyway, I have a question, and knowing your work with COI, maybe you can answer. I've been working on an "academic encyclopedia" (by which I mean similar to the "Encyclopedia of Sociology" etc) type article whose principal author is, predictably, a major contributor to the field that is the subject of the article (User:Smmurphy/Social rule system theory). Right now, an article like this is going to be deleted (this one was once, I think) unless some more experienced editor goes through the article and wikifies it. I'd like to ask you if you find such work fit for wikipedia: both in terms of COI and in terms of scope of WP. Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

'Conflict of interest' isn't meant to have any general impact on academics contributing. It should only apply in cases where (for some reason) there is strong partisan feeling attached to a sub-field, or where contributions are strongly self-promoting. Articles shouldn't be slanted, nor should they read like grant applications; any academic who has difficulty with those points should hold back, but the vast majority of academic contributors have no problem.
'Heineken Project' was a private joke, about reaching the parts of the site others don't.
I don't quite understand what you are saying about wikification, which is about the adding of wikilinks. General "house style" would prefer a more concise style than academic papers. Charles Matthews 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm wondering how WP deals with contributions by authors who are used to encyclopedia articles of that sort. I mention wikification as it is an open secret that if an article looks and smells like it belongs in terms of wikilinks, section style, and <ref> tags, it will rarely be deleted unless it is obvious POV. There is some difference in tone, however, and a big jump in the accessibility of the article to the general public. The author I've been talking to had three afds or speedies immidiately against his articles because they were on somewhat obscure social science concepts. The arguments at the afds were that the articles were COI/SPAM because the author was also a major reference. There was also a feeling of anti-"academic language" bias in some of the opinions. So if COI doesn't really address this, is there any official policies that show us how to view articles like this. Are they generally acceptable? This particular article is so long, and the subject is mostly the work of the author and his circle of sociologists, so I'm wondering if there is any policy I should know about before bringing it live and having what may be an inevitable discussion at afd about it.
Working with the author makes me wonder if WP would benefit if all of our graduate student editors convinced their younger, hipper advisors to release some writing on their field under GFDL? Of course, I suppose our graduate student editors would probably get more out of writing those articles themselves. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 08:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious why WP doesn't want to be a vehicle of anyone's self-promotion, and fairly obvious why it doesn't want articles written in deadly academic prose. Would you like me to copy-edit the draft article? Charles Matthews 08:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You can look at it if you like, it probably isn't necessary, I'm spending more time mulling about it than editing it, but usually it isn't because I don't understand. As for deadly academic prose in general, it doesn't seem that much worse than abstract mathematical nonsense. Both are useful for a specialist to look up. Neither will be used much if we have a reference text handy, but may be someday, if WP continues to improve. Thanks for your advice, Smmurphy(Talk) 09:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no good reason to have sound academic material deleted from Wikipedia. One presumes that such problems as occur are mainly matters of presentation. Charles Matthews 15:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I read the concerns of User:Smmurphy right, but perhaps he is referring to cases like the struggle about Afshar experiment. --Pjacobi 10:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power sum symmetric polynomials

I recently prepared a page on these polynomials to supplement the discussion of symmetric polynomials and symmetric functions, similar to the pages on elementary symmetric polynomials and complete homogeneous symmetric polynomials. Today I find the entire page disappeared. The only evidence is that you made the page a redirect to Newton's identities. I have to ask you a couple of questions: (1) Did you wipe out the previously existing page? (2) If not, who did? Most important: (3) Why? Most peculiar to me: (4) Why is there no record of the previous page? Why was there no discussion first? Am I living in an SF story where people have false memories of having created pages that never existed? (I just read a couple of those. I'm worrried!) Zaslav 23:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There were no previous edits (even deleted edits) to power sum symmetric polynomial, power-sum symmetric polynomial. (And power sum symmetric function, power-sum symmetric function do not yet exist.) No one had previously made a page for those. If you are sure you did, the only explanation would be that a database glitch meant that what you submitted did not get saved. I have looked down your edits and can't see such a page. Charles Matthews 08:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the trouble you took to provide an explanation. I did indeed prepare such an edit, but it was on someone else's computer. It's obvious there was some sort of data glitch, probably my failure to save the edited page. I apologize for any evil imputations! I was rather upset that the page didn't appear, and it was late at night -- with the usual effects. Zaslav 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Charles Matthews 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E8

Thank you for you work on E8! The computation section is quite good, much better than my 1st feeble attempt [1]. -Ravedave 02:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood Arbitration

Sorry to bother you, but I noticed that Penwhale posted a link to a statement that Kathryn made about this case that did not include my response. I hope you will consider it as well. [2] Rosencomet 05:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosencomet has written a rebuttal at Kathryn's comment. I've subsequently moved it back into his/her section here. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piece in the Observer

The reporter you sent my way is doing an article on vandalism in this Sunday's Observer. My family are over the moon about me having my picture in the paper but I'm kinda scared. I haven't seen the article, and will not until it comes out on Sunday. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you see me in the Times? Or the Mirror? I thought it was going to be in another week's time, but journalists are nothing if not unreliable ... My family also seemed pleased. I'm going to be in the Cambridge Evening News on Monday, which is perhaps the last gasp of the media cycle. The way I look at it: WP is an organisation that ought to let everyone know what it is doing, and (on the basis of a year as Publicity Officer for another organisation) I believe opportunities to do that are like hen's teeth. So well done about covers it. Charles Matthews 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Times, I didn't know there was an article in the Mirror. Do you have a link to an online version? I'd like to read it. Yep I agree publicity is good, I'm hoping the article on vandalism will help people "get" Wikipedia. Yes anyone can edit, but no, that doesn't mean we sit by and let people vandalise or spam etc. That's what I said in the interview and I hope that is how it reads on Sunday. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mirror article: quite a fair piece. Charles Matthews 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] duplicate articles

The articles on matrix group and classical Lie group are on essentially the same topic and almost duplicate each other. They could do with being merged into a single article classical group; if you could move one of them there the other could be merged into it the normal way. (I tried merging matrix group into classical Lie group, but an editor complained that matrix groups need not be Lie groups.) R.e.b. 20:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That was me objecting that the article on matrix groups included groups not of Lie type, so could not be merged. I have no objection to the bulk of the material migrating, the part that clearly is concerned with the classical Lie groups. --KSmrqT 13:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It gets better: I think 'matrix group' is properly what people call a 'linear group' (e.g. the Springer Encyclopedia article [3]); but linear group is a redirect currently to general linear group. I agree that the classical group examples currently at matrix group are inappropriate there (in any detail). I would take 'classical group' to be over any field (or even division algebra); when Dieudonné was writing about that concept, this was apparently what was meant. So ... we should have 'classical Lie group' as a section in classical group, and matrix group redirecting to linear group, which would mostly be about the sort of things proved in infinite group theory about arbitrary groups of matrices, but to include things like Jordan's theorem, results on finite subgroups of GLn(C) as a function of n? Charles Matthews 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I dont think it matters what "matrix group" redirects to, but some of the editors attracted by the recent publicity seem to have strong feelings on such matters, so it might be easier to wait a week or so to give them time to lose interest. R.e.b. 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah. Well, I've now fixed redirects to linear group so that nothing inappropriate would go there; and will move matrix group there (step 1). Charles Matthews 21:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, so matrix group now redirects to linear group. Classical group now redirects to group of Lie type, but that's just temporary. I redirected general orthogonal group, which for some reason redirected to matrix group also, to group of Lie type because I didn't immediately find a page about similitude groups. That's enough for one evening, but if you want to move material about classical groups from linear group to classical Lie group, be my guest. Charles Matthews 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I just moved classical Lie group to Classical group, and merged the relevant stuff from matrix group. I think most of the confusion is now sorted out. R.e.b. 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Henry Carless Davis

Charles,

You edited the above article on 24 March. Can you explain why you removed the following? I know several of them are subjective and therefore arguably non-NPOV, but surely being manifestly subjective, nobody is going to be deceived into believing that they are concrete knowledge; further, their exclusion represents a loss of information.

  • ... seems to have been happy there ... (A)
  • ... an interest which may have been inspired by 'Tortoise' ... (B)
  • ... The creative historian and good communicator of later years had not yet been awakened ... (C)
  • ... with great enthusiasm ... (D)
  • ... a moving address ... (E)
  • ... Christopher and Timothy, a chartered civil engineer and a consultant orthopaedic surgeon respectively ... (F)

AWhiteC 00:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(A) is speculation. (B) is vague. (C) is editorial. (D) probably comes under 'peacock terms'. (E) is journalism. (F): where children are not themselves notable, we typically don't include them by name (yes, there are exceptions). Overall, our house style or 'encyclopedic tone' is a little different from an obituary's, and these are examples of copy-editing tweaks designed to make the article more mainstream in tone. Charles Matthews 07:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Benedict XVI

Charles,

You have edited the above article. Can you explain why you changed the main image of Pope Benedict XVI?

Did I? What I changed was the text [[Cardinal Bishop|cardinal bishop]] of the [[suburbicarian diocese]] of [[Velletri]]-[[Segni]], making it have fewer links. Charles Matthews 07:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Intersection homology

user: Changbao made a bungled attempt to move Intersection cohomology to Intersection homology which resulted in loss of the entire article (which he then tried to rewrite part of from scratch). The title should probably be intersection homology. It's easy to get the old article from the history section, but moving it to intersection homology while keeping its history intact now seems to require some sort of admin tools. R.e.b. 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I try to avoid that manoeuvre as rather scary. I'll look at it tomorrow; it's late here now. Charles Matthews 22:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Done now. Perfect pairing needs to be a redirect to somewhere. Charles Matthews 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I also copied over the discussion, which somehow got left behind. This loses the history of the discussion, but that doesnt seem important enough to worry about. R.e.b. 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember now: it is not so much scary as entirely unintuitive. In the middle of it all the actual page seems completely junked. Charles Matthews 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I did any violence to the article, or at least to its subject, when I scrapped it. What's written below "Verdier duality approach" is wrong and in my opinion hopeless. I'd like to delete it again; do you object to this? Changbao 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me first explain good practice here. To make massive changes in an article, you should present the reasons, in the edit summary. That is one point. There is a different point, about preserving the complete edit history of the article. That is so that anyone can check back: it is transparent. What you did in the title change did not preserve the history. I have now fixed that. Please feel free to improve the mathematical content. Charles Matthews 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/InShaneee/Proposed_decision#Motion_to_close

It's close-able, but Paul August has asked to wait until you (and Raul) had a chance to review your votes on a topic. Would you be able to take a look at it before it is closed? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul has struck his oppose vote now. Charles Matthews 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modular curve

Hi Charles, I revamped Modular curve, in part having in mind recent additions of Shimura variety and the wishes left at Talk:Modular form about more algebraic (arithmetic?) treatment. I left a to do list on the talk page, please, contribute when you have time. Best, Arcfrk 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toledo translation school

Hi,

I noticed that you've contributed to the article on the so-called Toledo translation school. When I came across the article I was surprised because recent research has raised questions about the importance of Archbishop Raymond's sponsorship, to say nothing of the existence of a formal "school." If you're interested, could you comment at Talk:Toledo translation school. --SteveMcCluskey 12:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, when I came across the article it needed work for its English, and I noticed that the POV was perhaps somewhat over the top. I researched and created an article for Archibishop Raymond as best I could. If there are scholarly opinions tending to diminish his role as patron, they can first go into that article, I think. The question of a formal 'school' seems a little less immediately interesting, to me. If people talk about it, then we have an article on the concept which can then cast appropriate doubts about the institution. My normal reaction would be to work on articles about the participants, and see how those stack up. (I don't have online access to subscription-only articles, so I'm somewhat restricted when it comes to commenting on current scholarly debates). Charles Matthews 13:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice suggestion. Looking at the translators seems a useful way to build specifics around the article. As I suggested over there, If no one objects strenuously, I plan to move the present article to Translations into Latin (ca. 11th-12th c.) as a stub, including a revised version of Toledo translation school as its core. SteveMcCluskey 15:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting topic for a survey. Charles Matthews 19:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What do I do if I think that a newbie user becoming involved in an ArbCom case may actually be a sockpuppet of someone already involved? Is there anything special to the procedure? The Behnam 16:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you send your concern to the ArbCom, it will be looked into. Charles Matthews 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Well it has yet to be accepted, so should I wait until it is accepted first? Sorry if I am unfamiliar with the process. The Behnam 19:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Serious concerns about sockpuppets are of interest, either way. Charles Matthews 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metaplectic group

Hi Charles, can you, please, take a look at recent edits at Metaplectic group? I may be mistaken here, but it appears as if someone were engaged in promoting his/her recent arxiv article. As far as I could tell, there is no new content ("metaplectic group" over a finite field was known for a long time, and mentioned in the paragraph right above one of the recent additions), other than the arxiv link, which is now even promoted to the first place on the list (a small, but telling sign). Arcfrk 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, in fact (about the notability of the content). Charles Matthews 07:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inner automorphism context

The article has been tagged as being "too complex" for the layman. I am tempted to remove the templates, as I'm not sure this article can be made less technical. Groups about operations on groups is a concept that I dont think a layman will ever stumble across.... As you have recently done some good edits to the article, I wanted to ask your opinion about removing the templates and simply leaving the article "too technical". - grubber 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It still needs work. I've added another paragraph, and some examples could be given. Charles Matthews 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding [4] Arbitration

Hello Charles,

Could we do a check user on Weldingveersamy (talk · contribs)? I think he might be a sockpuppet of Venki123 (talk · contribs). I think he is playing both sides.

Thanks, Mudaliar 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tate conjecture

Charles, I noticed a slight bug in the notation in this article. There are various phrases of the following form W′ of W; unfortunately, on my browser at least (Firefox) the prime is virtually invisible. I would just change it, but your choice of notation would almost certainly be better than mine. Maybe you could have a look. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artie p (talk • contribs) 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

It might look better to some people as W′, i.e. ''W'' with a bold ′ . I use IE. One can't necessarily win, in trying to take into account idiosyncracies of browsers. Charles Matthews 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the slant of the W ends up making the prime a serif of the W. Is there some way to force a blank into the expression between the W and the prime? W ′ or W ′ ? Both might break on a line, though. W ′ ? htom 17:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the last option looks good on my browser, so as long as line breaks aren't a problem, I'll try putting that in. Cheers, Artie P.S. 08:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
W′ wouldn't have the annoying space, but to my eye it's too close. htom 23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
For me, on Firefox, W′ (code: ''W''&prime;) looks quite okay, as does W′ (code: ''W'''''&prime;'''). On the other hand, replacing the W with a V, we get V′ (code: ''V''&prime;) and V′ (code: ''V'''''&prime;''') which are hardly readable. The space in W ′ (code: ''W''&nbsp;&prime;) is too big for me. Other possibilities are to use a thin space as in W ′ (code: ''W''&#8201;&prime;) or a medium space as in W ′ (code: ''W''&#8197;&prime;). Both look acceptable to me, but I'm not sure that all browsers understand this. This may well be one of the situations where it's impossible to get it right for everybody. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The appearance also depends on font configuration. Fonts are a huge factor in mathematical typesetting, more than most people realize. I'm still optimistic about the STIX Fonts project, which on April 5 said "We expect to be able to name the release date within the next week or two." The design choice was congruence with the "Times" family, but I'm ready for almost any universally available broad-coverage standard. --KSmrqT 04:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Trying -- nbsp W ′ -- thin W ′ -- medium W ′ -- to my eye, in FireFox 1.5x and XP, nbsp has the thinnest space, which is very surprizing, and none of those seems to have slanted the prime mark? htom 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
W​′ zero space char, but it seems to "pad" the slanted W htom 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Callmebc's loss of privacy

You can find censored versions of the email I sent Callmebc (talk · contribs) at User talk:Callmebc#Email "threat": a heavily-censored version I put there, and a lightly-censored version put there by Callmebc himself. As I explained there, I made no threat; I was trying to issue a friendly warning that information he had given GoDaddy was easily found. I have not disclosed any of that information to anyone, and will not do so (and would not do so even if Wikipedia's rules allowed me to).

On the other hand, Callmebc seems quite happy for that information to be available, or he would not have put my email on his talk page with only his domain name redacted.

Callmebc has accused me (and almost(?) everybody else he has encountered here since registering) of acting maliciously towards him. The truth is that I feel no malice towards him, and wish I could help him. Regards, CWC 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, could you answer the question that brought you here, then? Charles Matthews 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, "would not do so even if Wikipedia's rules allowed me to" isn't explicit enough. Yes, I am aware of Wikipedia:Harassment. In fact, I'm the one who told Callmebc about it! (See User talk:Callmebc#Getting me banned from Wiki editing.) Cheers, CWC 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
What you do in your own time is of course up to you. Do you understand the point of view that Wikipedia editors in good standing should leave investigative work on identities of other editors well alone? And if they can't or don't, should take care not to be misconstrued, if they disclose the results? Charles Matthews 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, dear.
As you know full well, "Wikipedia editors in good standing" investigate the identities of other editors all the time, in tracking down trolls, sock puppets, etc.
Last year I noticed that user:209.6.203.244 had written enormous amounts of text at Talk:Killian documents with little or no benefit to the article. The anon had frequently mentioned his website, and also admitted to being a troll, so I did a WHOIS and checked for any other problematic activity. (Happily, I found none.) User:65.78.25.69, who started editing last month, made it clear he is the same person, then registered as Callmebc. So my knowledge of this not-so-private information comes from checking out a self-confessed troll, and predates his current account.
I have not investigated any established Wikipedia editors. I have investigated other trolls, vandals and spammers, and intend to keep doing so. I have been told by admins that non-admins can and should do that. Were those admins wrong?
A quick glance at User talk:Callmebc will reveal that the situation is rather more complex than you seem to understand. If you don't understand what you see there, skim Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7.
I am offended by your warning about being misconstrued, since only a few lines above I promised not to reveal that information. Either you didn't bother to read what I wrote before replying, or you just called me a liar. Please clarify. CWC 20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, you appear to be evasive on this, in fact. I said should take care not to be misconstrued. That is obviously true. You have not answered the question, whether you understand why people should take care not to be misconstrued, in revealing to someone editing the site that their real name is known. In reply to your claim that you have been encouraged in investigative activities, by admins, can you tell me which admins? It seems to me that you have actually shown poor judgement here. Your email, as I have seen it, might have been phrased in exactly the same way, if it had been a threat to out someone. What is more, you are now saying you were investigating this editor. That is not entirely consistent with the 'just helping a lost soul' thing.
And you should take care also not to miss the point. I'm not calling you a liar. But how is someone else supposed to take your actions? Charles Matthews 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to be un-evasive. I'll try harder.

  • I have not revealed Callmebc's private information, and will not do so.
    (I promised Callmebc on his talk page not to reveal my email, except on request by an admin. Since he put my email on his talk page with very little redaction, that exception no longer applies.)
  • I have not threatened to out anyone, and will not do so.
  • I have not threatened any editor here with anything but application of Wikipedia's rules, and will not do so.
  • I have not used threats of outing people to intimidate anyone, and will not do so.
  • Should I discover any private details of trolls, vandals, spammers etc, I will use that information only per Wikipedia rules.
  • Should I discover private details of established editors, I will not reveal them (except on request by an admin with a good reason, which request seems very unlikely).

Hmm. I keep writing "private details", but that's completely wrong. The whole point here is that the information Callmebc gave to GoDaddy is not private. It is quite public, because Callmebc made it public. Indeed, Callmebc seems quite relaxed about people getting that information; he has disclosed how to get those details on his talk page. (Many people choose to give relatives or friends addresses when registering domains; I hope that Callmebc did so.)

I do understand the something that is misconstrued as a threat is as coercive as a genuine threat, and therefore just as unacceptable. (I didn't see that before; my apologies.) However, Callmebc is currently interpreting pretty much everything anyone says to him either as a threat or an attack. See his interactions with user:Alabamaboy for some examples. He has assumed bad faith in all but one of my dealings with him, and I cannot see how I could change his mind about me.

Please read User talk:Callmebc#Email "threat". Note "complete waste of time", "are you aware", "neat name" and "don't mind these details being public". I should have said that I wouldn't reveal those details. (In fact, I probably did say that, in a version that was lost in a browser crash. I rewrote the message in a hurry, and left out that important bit.) Note also "declarative and unconditional" and "nothing about ... possible actions".
I'm not suprised that Callmebc wants to interpret my email as a threat, but I am astonished and disappointed that anyone else would stretch my words that far. I'm not the world's best writer, but when I write threats they're at least a little bit threatening. If I wanted to threaten Callmebc, why on earth would I use wikimail? (Remember, I already had an email address for him.) If I wanted him blocked, one message about his massive disruption of Talk:Killian documents to an appropriate admin would see him gone.

"Investigating this editor" is entirely consistent with the 'just helping a lost soul' thing. I investigated an admitted troll in 2006. The 'lost soul' thing started last month. I wonder why you didn't think of that possibility?

Which admins told me to check out vandals etc? It was over a year ago, and I've forgotten. I could dredge it up, but it would take hours. Let's look at WP:ADMIN instead:

Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else.

Remember, I'm not hacking websites or anything. I'm doing simple stuff, using only public information. For example, I recently noticed that an anon user added a link to a non-commercial site whose IP address was the same as the user's; see User talk:67.188.240.146. Do you have any problem with non-admins doing that sort of thing?

"How is someone else supposed to take your actions?" Well, as a long-winded but well-intentioned guy sending a friendly message to a former(?) troll that his attempt to be anonymous here were pointless because of something he did years ago. (Remember: he called himself a troll.) I've offered to help him with a few things. I told him something important about wikis here. I tried to explain WP:BLP and WP:ATT to him:[5]

You'll have noticed people using the phrase "original research". Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Like many of Wikipedia's rules, NOR seems very strange until you see how it works, so please try to understand it. For one thing, it means we cannot make deductions from the sources we use. Example: Even if we have Reliable Sources saying that (1) a man with red hair was seen stealing candy from a baby in a small town and (2) John Doe was the only red-head in that town, NOR forbids us from saying that John Doe stole the candy unless a Reliable Source has said so.

I was trying hard to follow WP:BITE, and I put a lot of time into trying to write helpful messages to someone who I once regarded as a disruptive troll. (I also put a lot of time into redacting things he wrote that violated WP:BLP.) I do not expect Callmebc to turn into a useful contributor, but I have tried hard to help him become one. I am confident that any fair-minded person who examines my actions will take them that way.

I've sent you an email on a somewhat related topic. Could you let me know if some appropriate person or group of people is looking at that matter? Best wishes, CWC 00:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On later thought, I'd better expand my point about "If I wanted him blocked". Callmebc was disrupting Wikipedia and showing no sign of ever helping to build the encyclopedia, so I knew that most admins would take one look and block him. I was right about that: the first non-involved admin to take a look immediately issued a 72 hour block. At the time, I thought it best for Callmebc that he not be blocked. In retrospect, I suspect an earlier and much shorter block would have been better for him. I wish I had more clue about how to help him. Sincerely, CWC 11:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tripolis, Greece

Hi. I'm editing the page Tripolis, Greece, its history part, about a massacre which took place here in 1821. I even give GREEK web sites as footnote to prove the undiscussible truth of the fact. But some greek fashists are deleting it frequently. I want that the fact being solved. Thanks.

I haven't time to look completely at this now. I suggest you look at the articles on Theodoros Kolokotronis and Greek War of Independence to see how these issues should be discussed. Charles Matthews 13:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Because they are meaningless. They are from 1900s stuff, they are second-hand references. Let's simply keep the Catholic reference, and if one is interested in THEIR references, he can go there. I think, they were just a copy-paste from a not so skilled editor. Bye and good work. --Attilios 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A note... when you surf in one of the numerous articles here in which Anglo-Saxon people considered obvious that readers from, say, Burkina Faso, would automatically know where things such as Gloucestershire (look at my edit on Brimpsfield Castle) or Arizona or similar were, can you please add the nation we are speaking of, at least? Bye and good work again. --Attilios 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hang on. They may not be interesting to you. But that doesn't mean that you can just cut them out without even a comment. You don't have to read them. Also you cut material attributed to Mabillon, who is at least one of the great scholars. And you made the birth/death places into a less standard format. We need to discuss all these matters. Charles Matthews 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Caribbean Coast

Hi,

I found the page: Caribbean Coast, was deleted. Concerning the copyright issue, I would like to rebuild the page with my own information. In fact, the latest version of Caribbean Coast before deletion, had most content from my own. I would be grateful if you could return the source of the deleted page and I will rebuild what i wrote.

I am not sure what Ohconfucius mean about the copyrighted content, at least he/she did not particiaate in the discussion or to post his/her own edition. At last, Jimfbleak need to prove what is the violation, instead of listen to Mr somebody to delete that page. I would respect Jimfbleak power, but i would disagree Jimfbleak abuse of power without evidence.

Thanks


senatorto

[edit] Real field

I'm tempted to change the redirect at real field to a disambiguation page for real number and real closed field. I am new to the idea of "real" and "real closed", but, do you have an opinion if "real field" is interesting enough (outside of real closed) to deserve its own article? - grubber 15:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should just leave it. "Real field" is telegraphic for "real number field", but it is sensible as a redirect. Charles Matthews 10:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to look through my algebra books to see if there's anything interesting to say about real fields that are not real closed. When I tried to search for an article on WP for the "real" concept, I typed "real" and "real field" and neither took me where I wanted to go. I stumbled on real closed field by accident. I'm not particularly comfortable that real field and rational field both redirect to real number and rational number. A simple dab page disambiguating rational field and field of fractions could be useful to direct users to the more "applied" and the more "thoeretical" notions. I noticed that you created both redirects, and was just curious what you think. - grubber 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There's the formally real field concept. Otherwise I don't know of any ambiguity issues with that. And I really don't think 'rational field' should be used for 'field of fractions'. Charles Matthews 18:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colonel Rainborough

Hi there. I was checking Wikipedia for variations on Rainsborough, and I came across User:Charles Matthews/Crick, where Colonel Rainborough is listed. Since both the Rainboroughs listed there (they were brothers, but there were variant spellings of their name), are colonels, I took the liberty of turning the Colonel Rainborough red-link into a redirect to Rainsborough (though most of the references to Colonel Rainborough will probably be to Thomas - William only became a colonel later on, after his brother was killed - so feel free to redirect to Thomas if you agree with that). If the Colonel Rainborough on your list was a different one, please feel free to add him to the Rainsborough disambiguation page. Thanks. Carcharoth 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's Thomas. Charles Matthews 10:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I've changed the redirect. Did you know that both Thomas and William were involved in a naval expedition to Providence Island, the "other Puritan colony"? I've updated Providence Island (a redirect to the Spanish name), to include the early history, which sounds fascinating. Sorry to ramble, but thought you might be mildly interested in that! :-) Carcharoth 16:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
No, you got me there. Charles Matthews 16:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration refused

What does "Try getting some more admins involved" mean and how is it going to help if they can't impose a binding resolution? John Smith's 09:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hoped it was self-explanatory. If I as admin were involved in trying to sort out a disagreement, and found myself stretched, I would call on an admin colleague. In the past this has helped me greatly. It's not just strength in numbers, it means that different approaches can be in play. And, I must emphasise, the vast majority of disputes here are sorted out by voluntary agreements. Charles Matthews 10:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
User:El_C suggested that the two of us attempting to jointly mediate may be useful if the RfC leads nowhere. I'm not sure this will work but its certainly worth a go. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 13:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
El_C has too much of a history with Giovanni, so a more neutral admin would have to take his place. John Smith's 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
What history? I'm sorry but that is false. El C doesnt have any history with me, nor any history of dispute with John Smith. The only time I've seen him with any interaction is in an opinion on the talk page of The Theory of Everthing, in which John Smith followed me there to revert as usual. Although John did not explain his objections on the talk page, El_C simplyl expressed agreement about the argument I was making on the talk page for my edit, and offered a refence that supported the point I was making. At no time in the past did El C, as far as I know have any involvement with myself, nor any edit conflicts with John Smith.
I'd accept a joint mediation of by both admins as suggested El_C in imposing a solution to resolve the content disputes, provied that the views of all the editors feedback from the Rfc are taken into consideration. I'd like this to be as close to a democratic consensus as possible under the guiding principals of WP's policies. Btw, I agree that getting more admins involved will go a long way model best practices regarding certain behaviors in general, and resolving these disutes in particular.Giovanni33 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
El_C gave you a barnstar, though I was mistaken he had a long relationship with you. But more importantly he refused to discuss my ban (I contacted him in good faith despite the fact Deskana had reinstated the "no action" decision) in private, despite the fact I e-mailed him twice, yet spoke in favour of my ban being reinstated. So I do not believe him to be neutral enough.
Giovanni, you refused a hybrid version of mediation and arbitration with Deskana, so you cannot complain if I refuse mediation with El_C. Mediation requires the consent of both parties as to the identities of the mediators, as well as to the fact whether mediation takes place. So I insist on a neutral 3rd party as the other mediator.
You also misunderstand the point of mediation. It is not to make a decision, but to MEDIATE between the relevant parties or groups. The dispute is primarily between us, so what other people have said is not relevant to the mediation process.
Getting admins involved won't change anything if they're not going to make decisions, and Giovanni expressly rejected any binding resolution earlier on. So one might as well use the mediators (surely that's what they're for). John Smith's 19:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into another lenghty argument about this, which is a waste of time, and getting rather boring. Suffice it to say, I think you are wrong, factually speaking. For example, you say, El_C, "corresponded with you in the past in regards to events other than what we are in dispute about now." I'd like to know what that was. I can't think of anything. Care to support that and see how its relevant to yoru stance that he won't act in good faith? I'm sure that you think Deskana would be fair enough to your possition so do you also think he will not disagree with El_C if there is something not fair that is suggested? Since you are the ONLY editor who is stubborningly persisting in your possition as is apparent in the Rfc, I can understand why you would not want their feedback considered. However, I find it highly relevant and one should be willing to back down and walk away if consensus of most (or all) editors feels you are wrong. I have confidence that most admins will consider the Rfc feedback, and be able to properly advise you about moving forward beyond conflicts.Giovanni33 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if you'd bothered to check the edit history before you made that comment you will see I said I was mistaken.
What does "I'm sure that you think Deskana would be fair enough to your possition" mean? I have no idea whether Deskana will be "fair enough to my position", but Deskana has tried to resolve things between us without taking sides. On the other hand I cannot be so sure of El_C. I don't have to justify my views to you because you don't get to decide whether he is a mediator or not.
It is also extremely duplicitous of you to pretend I am the only person being stubborn. Before we had the RfC on the Mao book page, you refused to remove any reference to Gao even when no one was backing you up. Similarly you are being just as "stubborn" on the Jung Chang page - why aren't you willing to back down there? Don't twist facts to suit yourself. John Smith's 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, factually wrong. The Rfc speaks for itself. I was not alone and most editors agreed with me. I think we should take into consideration the views of others, and only insist when consensus is clearly on your ones side, and esp. when there is only one editor (and then a new IP address to support your version shows up)-- and when you lack any valid argument. When that is not the siutation, I do back down and accept a compromised possition. I'm willing to change my mind because I take into consideration the views of other established editors, as evidence by my change of mind on Cultural Revolution. This is what you should do when you are the only editor who feels a certain way. You can't always get your way. Provided that WP policies remain first, we must always respect consensus and seek further imput from others instead of reverting just to get your way right now. Again, if you feel El_C will not be fair then this feeling should be asuaged by the fact that it jointly involves another admin, of your liking. If you want a third admin to get involved, I'd welcome that too. I see no basis to impune the reputation of El_CGiovanni33 20:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
What is "the Rfc"? There are a number of them. And it is correct that on the Jung Chang page you are the only person who is demanding the link stay, even if it is temporary. Also most editors did not agree with you that Gao had to be included in that period before the perma-block was put up. If was you for, with Baekle, myself and Xmas objecting.
I can compromise myself - don't pretend I haven't. If I wanted to I could have still removed any reference to Kaz Ross on the book page, but I agreed to leave it.
Also, why can't you get your head around the simple concept that mediation is not about having a decision, judgement or "view" made? This is about resolving our differences - if you turn it into a game of "more people agree with me" then mediation will not work.
I'm sorry, I'm still objecting to El_C. Now if you want to complain about Deskana, please do so. If you won't then you have to accept that is one mediator we can agree upon. John Smith's 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just comment that if Arbitration is supposed to do one thing, it is supposed to encourage people to settle differences out of court. Someone should be able to come up with a proposal that would have you guys at least addressing the issues. Charles Matthews 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles, the entire reason I supported abritration was that I could see I would get absolutely nowhere with Giovanni through more discussion - we're all talked out. I would like to think we could discuss things, but the arrogant way in which he dismisses anything I say, even trying to turn a new user against me, has made me believe that the only two solutions are arbitration or "court". John Smith's 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are dismissing things Giovanni is saying. Now, why don't you come up with the name of one admin you would like to involve in this? Charles Matthews 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Charles, I try my best to reason with him but even my patience has limits. I am still happy with Deskana getting involved (if he still wants to). As for a second admin, if I ask then that may appear to be unfair - I can't easily pick a neutral admin if I know who they are. Wouldn't it just be a lot easier to ask one of the mediators to help out? John Smith's 20:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind. You can ask for mediation, you can find some admin who'd contribute to discussing this some more, you can ask me to ask someone. I don't accept that the resources for resolving this have been exhausted. Charles Matthews 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you would be willing it would be great if you could ask a mediator or another admin to co-mediate with Deskana. I think it's just the fairest way. John Smith's 20:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've asked someone. Charles Matthews 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your help. John Smith's 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat interesting how Giovani places a comment on my talk page and John Smith arrives with a rebuttle a mere four minutes later. El_C 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to me. Charles Matthews 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Good vibes. El_C 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thing you may find uninteresting is the "ban"-related email John Smith refers to. If he consents, I would be pleased to make that exhange (which did actually happen) public so as to prove that what he is claiming above is false. El_C 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

El C, I think your comments here are starting to show that you're not as neutral in this as you could be. As for the e-mails, there was an "exchange" in as far as you sent me an e-mail (after my first) saying it would be quicker to get a response if I posted on your talk page, but you didn't reply to my second message explaining I wanted to talk things over privately and asking for comments on the points I made in the first. I shouldn't have implied you refused to talk to me at all, but it is true you only sent me the one e-mail and didn't reply to the second. John Smith's 22:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly why I did not want to discuss things privately; it would have been better to discuss everything on-wiki where everyone could examine everything. There was nothing that needed to be kept private from what you said, it was all in the realm of nonabusive content dispute. Now Giovani will refuse Deskana (the admin you favour) since you have refused myself (the admin he favours) and both of you will be back to square one, with mediators who will need quite a bit of orientation with the dispute. Except that other users have also complained about your edits in the rejected arbitration case, so it isn't just you and him. El_C 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hold up, you said I wasn't telling the truth when I commented that you didn't want to talk things over privately - now you're admitting you didn't want to talk things over privately. Are there two El Cs here? I have a right to attempt to discuss matters privately with people. If they refuse that is their choice, but you can't complain when I say you didn't want to talk it over like that.
If Giovanni wants to refuse Deskana then that is his choice - of course it would rather make his earlier comments about my objection to you seem rather hypocritical. As I said to him, if he wants to refuse Deskana he should do so openly. If he secretly questioned Deskana's impartiality then that wouldn't have helped mediation - we need mediators that both sides can trust. It isn't about getting one guy you like and another guy the other party likes. If anything that would be one of the worst possible ways to try to go about things. It would be regretable if Deskana couldn't contribute as he knows a lot about the problem, but if Giovanni doesn't trust him then it's a moot point.
On a side-point, I don't "favour" Deskana. Deskana is the admin with the most experience in this matter and has tried to be neutral throughout, hasn't banned either Giovanni or me, etc. Certainly he hasn't left messages on other people's talk pages about "interesting" things. John Smith's 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There's only one of me. It was really quick rebuttle, but I guess you both had a close exchange here only an hour before, so I suppose it makes sense. But it did take me by surprise. As for your claim that I refused to discuss your "ban" (it was a block not a ban), that is false. You refused to discuss it publicly, for reasons which remain unclear, and by then the matter was concluded. As for Deskana (who now I really wish would have filled the 3RR report header, sparing me all this), he initiated an RfAr (rather inexplicably, I found) which struck me as one-sided (against Giovani), but everyone else who responded to it took issues with your edits, so that's certainly something I, at least, found to be of interest. El_C 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
El, if you read my comments more carefully you will see I said "in private". Specifically I said "But more importantly he refused to discuss my ban (I contacted him in good faith despite the fact Deskana had reinstated the "no action" decision) in private". As I said earlier, there is no requirement for me to talk about such matters in public.
You are also, once again, showing your bias when you claimed the other people who took part in the arbitration application where there to criticise me. HongQiGong was fairly non-partisan, though he agreed with some of Giovanni's edits (not all of them, as he was only involved on one page) and Xmas1973 was on my side from what I can see. It wasn't nearly as black and white as you pretended. It's rather interesting you failed to spot that. You're very good at not noticing things when it suits you, aren't you? John Smith's 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There was no need for private communications. Your reasons for refusing the accountability of public discourse seemed frivolous. Indeed, I appear to have misrecollected that Xmas1973 (Contributions) was so decidedly on your side. At any rate, I'm involved in enough disputes at the moment (none editorially; all administratively), which may account for why I cannot remember the precise details of this one as well as you (although, in fairness, you had a misrecollection that was of a similar magnitude); thus, I am more than pleased to leave you to your own devices. El_C 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I have never had any private discourse with Giovani, so anything I say here is purely speculative; as in the notion of myself counter-balancing Deskana being the reason as to why Giovani may now decline him as mediating party. El_C 01:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles asked me on my talk page to help in this matter. Unfortunately, I'm rather busy in the coming week so I won't be able to be of much help. I think you're better of finding some other admin. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excess fat cut

From my ArbCom comment. Please let me know if it needs more weight loss excercising :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfAR Notice regarding the Killian Documents dispute

Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 00:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFArb Transnistria

Hi, Charles,

As you are an arbiter in the case regarding Transnistria, please take a look at [6] and also at the talk page. I think we should checkuser the suspected socks not with their recent contributions but with their old ones, before suspected sockpuppeteer knows about the suspicions. Losing time can mean losing evidence. Thanks.--MariusM 11:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Mathematics main page

I'm thinking of making some edits to update the main page of WikiProject Mathematics, which seems to be rather out of date at the moment. In particular, it encourages editors to add new articles the list of mathematics articles. Since MathBot now does this, I think it would be better to encourage editors to add categories. Also, although it is valuable to explain the origins and history of the project, I think this should be done more seemlessly. This means absorbing your 2006 update into the text, which is the main reason I am leaving this message now. If you disagree with this idea, or would like to take an active or leading role in such an update, please let me know. Geometry guy 23:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Spring cleaning was overdue. Charles Matthews 09:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a first attempt at this today. Perhaps more could be done, but more substantial changes probably need to be discussed on the talk page first. Geometry guy 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles created

I don't know if you keep track of these, but I recently got a tool working that lists the articles a person has created. I couldn't help but notice that you're doing quite a lot of work, sometimes creating more than 5 articles a day. On top of it, you're on ArbCom... I don't know how you do it. Anyway, many thanks for your voluminous contributions to Wikipedia. --Interiot 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't keep a list of the surname dab pages I make, so this gadget could be quite useful for me. Charles Matthews 09:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Rodker

If I understand the history of this article correctly, you were the person who started the article about my (genetic) father, John Rodker. Just curious how a mathematician happened to know so much about him! My half-sister, Joan, would love to know also! Maybe there is a Cambridge connection, as I believe Ian Patterson, who also lives there, is coming out with a book on him (or has already come out with it). If you are not the same person, please ignore this question! Thanks in advance! Jpaulm 00:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I started the article. It was researched online, I think; there are some things about Rodker in Jane Goldmann, Modernism 1910-1945, but I didn't have that when starting out. (I was tracking down poets.) I happen to know Ian Patterson. Charles Matthews 08:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Neat! Thanks for your prompt answer! It's really a small world! Please say hello to Ian if you run into him - we got together last time I was in Cambridge. All the best! Jpaulm 15:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McConn on revert parol for a year?

I've just noticed that this is the conclusion you've come to, and I'm quite surprised. I doubt that there is anything that I can do about your decision, but I still feel the need to defend myself. It's true that I've engaged in edit warring, but rarely have I ever reverted without discussion (in fact using the talk pages to explain each of my edits is something I make a priority of), and rarely have I ever participated in a revert war that wasn't over edits that were quite clearly inappropriate. I believe that I've also been regarded by most other users as very reasonable, including by those that are on the opposing side, such as Firestar and Tomananda. It's rare that people rationally complain about my editing behavior. I also make a point of using the talk pages to discuss content without pushing my opinion about Falun Gong. And because of these things, I haven't felt any warning or threat that some action might be taken against me. I appologize for the fact that I haven't been following the arbitration case or participating in it. This is mostly because I was away from wikipedia for about two months, and only really came back after the pages were opened up to make some edits that I thought were rather straightforward. (I understand now that this was probably wrong and that I should have waited for the arbcom case to finish before making such content changes). Anyway, were I to know or have been warned that my editing behavior has been a problem I would change immediately; you don't need to put me on any kind of restricting parol to do that. I respect your position and understand that you've done your homework, but from my perspective this kind of decision without any warning seems like jumping the gun. Thanks for listening. Mcconn 16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Type 4 Heavy Machine Gun

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Type 4 Heavy Machine Gun, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Megapixie 09:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification

Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you should note that we have spent a number of weeks considering the evidence in this case. Making certain remedies doesn't in fact exclude that we will make other and further motions in this case. Where we are proposing remedies, close consideration has been given to the matter. The fact that Fred Bauder has looked further really doesn't change that. In case of need to exclude IP-number edits, pages can be semi-protected. Charles Matthews 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The ArbCom's hard work to carry out their duties has been noted and is much appreciated by most of the Wikipedian community, CM, but until all FG pages are at least semi-protected, and only one side (in this case two anti-FGers) having users banned, it could cause an irreconcilable argument / edit war that may be harder to control. That's all. Jsw663 12:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that comment is very appropriate. All the experience we have shows one thing: to allow the more reasonable editors to reach compromise versions of contentious pages, it is sometimes necessary to remove disruptive editors. On a topic like Falun Gong, there is probably no shortage of editors, on either side. Just counting isn't very helpful. Charles Matthews 12:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I was only trying to express the point that there are extremists on both sides, but the conduct of the more extreme on the pro-FG side hasn't come under the microscope because they weren't listed under the 'involved parties'. So, I'm not really blaming ArbCom for an unfair decision per se - I am merely sharing Fred's opinion that the case did not cover a wide enough scope of users. Please don't misunderstand my comments, although I can see how it comes across at first. Jsw663 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
PS The pro-FG camp, especially users such as Olaf_Stephanos, have become distinctly uncivil (maybe even arrogant) since the ArbCom 'victory' (as he sees it) and has made many provocative comments recently, e.g. telling other users to "go and wash their mouth out". Can we do anything about it, besides reminding Olaf that Wikipedia should be maintained as a civil community? Jsw663 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There may need to be another case. I hope not. It sometimes takes two or three cases before people understand that edit-warring is not a permanent solution to anything, but bad edits are permanently recorded. Charles Matthews 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks very much for your replies, and hope that I won't have to disturb any busy arbitrator any further about Falun Gong in the future!!! Jsw663 13:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics CotW

Hey Charles, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think we are about to lose another expert, check this link [7]

OK, these projecty things have to contain an element of things being fun to work on. I don't know what the metric for that is, but past history shows something about worthiness not being enough. Charles Matthews 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for all

Thanks for all the generosity, all the information and structure, here. Was also wondering if you play on KGS? I'd love to play you sometime. MotherFunctor 03:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't play go online. Charles Matthews 08:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michel Le Quien

Kudos for doing the linking; I was wondering when someone would write the article and link him around. Carlossuarez46 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article is not mine. The linking is quite relaxing work. Charles Matthews 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)