Ultra snozbarg
Welcome!
Hello, Ultra snozbarg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
small bits of copy-editing edit
In conformal welding, please note that in non-TeX mathematical notation, one should italicize variables but not parentheses or other delimiters and not digits. The point is to be consistent with the style used by TeX. See WP:MOSMATH. Also, in accordance with WP:MOS, I changed a hyphen for a range of pages to an en-dash. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- ....and in a bit of more substantial editing, I added conformal welding to the list of complex analysis topics. So far that is the only article that links to conformal welding. If there are other articles that should link to it, those links should be added. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
initial context-setting edit
Hello again.
Please note my recent edits to defect operator. I think the phrase "In operator theory," fails to tell the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. "In geometry" or "In algebra" or "In number theory", etc., is fine, but the typical non-mathematician does not know what operator theory is (nor topology, nor category theory, etc.). Michael Hardy (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Ultra snozbarg (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
FYI edit
Your edits in mathematics have followed my own and it is therefore highly likely that your account is an alternative account of the community banned editor Echigo mole. It is highly unlikley that a random editor would follow another user's edits in that way. You followed the article oscillator representation, Littlewood subordination theorem, Contraction (operator theory) and Weyl–von Neumann theorem, in the latter case creating a trolling fork article on the same day I created the original article. There is a report concerning you on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Indeed it would seem that you reported yourself. Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Ultra snozbarg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have just returned to find that I was blocked while I was away. I finally tracked down the discussion and it seems that I have been confused with the astonishingly energetic Echigo Mole (it's not quite clear but bizarrely Mole seems to have deliberately involved me himself). As far as I can tell, the only reason given at the discussion was "CU is not particularly helpful, behaviour will have to be the deciding factor" (what does that mean exactly?) from WilliamH followed by a severe critique of my edits from Mathsci. He seems to be outraged that I created articles in his area of expertise ("sock-trolled", "brainless exercise", "trolling fork" and so on). Actually I don't think they are that bad, but he is entitled to edit them if he wishes, as indeed we all are, and did completely rewrite one that I had started, and I don't mind saying that the result is an improvement. Unfrotunately I was not around to take part in the discussion and make my point. Anyway, however bad my articles are, and as I say I don't think they were as bad as he says, I don't think I should be banned for it without a discussion on their merits. So please can I continue to edit? In the interests of harmony I will try to avoid anything that Mathsci might take exception to -- if I do inadvertently cross his path again I apologise in advance and would only ask that he discuss matters with me first before having me banned again.
Decline reason:
Was blocked based on being a "perfect WP:DUCK" (i.e. behavorial evidence), and I don't see any contrary evidence that would convince me this is not Echigo mole. Also WP:NOTTHEM. The Bushranger One ping only 13:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ultra snozbarg (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note. This is yet another Echigo mole sock making an unblock request, trolling in the request. This seems to be his latest type of stunt. He has consistently lied in unblock requests. So the best idea is to remove his talk page access. The sockpuppet report was clear enough; this sockpuppet found that report quite easily. The mathematical trolling was blatant (creation of fork articles and editing topics extremely close to my edits at the time in graduate-level mathematics on univalent functions and operator theory). It was repeated by other sock accounts at the time. So more disruption/time-wasting just like on user talk:Boodlepounce and user talk:Hyperbaric oxygen. It is not coincidence that he tries this new game in several places at exactly the same time. Mathsci (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I quite understand that Mathsci did not approve of the articles I started, but it would have been more helpful if he had chosen to discuss them with me or just edit them in the normal way. Indeed I am still quite unclear as to what exactly he finds so objectionable about them, especially to the point of wanting me to be banned from the project: I venture to suggest that something beyond merely repeating the word trolling might be desirable. The misdeeds of other editors do not seem to be relevant here: in particular it is rather surprising to find Mathsci iplicitly accusing me of lying in my request: can Mathsci substantiate that by pointing to a mis-statement here? In any event I have voluntarily undertaken to avoid Mathsci's area of interest should my request be granted, and hope that Mathsci will be able to reciprocate. Ultra snozbarg (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention. Other editors of almost equal importance in the mathematics community reviewed the articles I started: there are comments on this very page by one of them, and I assume that he would have mentioned it if the articles had been so very bad as to warrant repeated dismissal as "trolling". So since the only complaint against me seems to be that my articles are so nonsensical as to make me a sock-puppet, and that doesn't seem to be the case, and I am willing to undergo a volutnary interaction ban with respect to Mathsci, I hope my request will be granted so that I can resume contributing to the encylopedia. Ultra snozbarg (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that this Echigo mole sock evidently followed me to specialist rarely edited articles where he was evidently intellectually completely out of his depth. I wrote detailed content on how to use singular integral operators to solve the probelm of conformal welding/gluing, etc. Then this sock troll created a few redirects related to that. He has no competence whatsoever concerning singular integral operators, which underlies this topic. I also wrote the content on the Weyl−von Neumann theorem. He then created his own silly fork article, changed by me to a redirect. Those edits were juat disruptive trolling. Echigo mole bahaves on WP like a little creep. He has created over 100 socks. So lying and dishonesty are w the norm for him. His socks were involved in a series of hoax articles on Provence. His socks have also attempted to fake having mathematical expertise. Yet at no stage, and in particular with this current account, has Echigo mole been able to add any mathematical content either that has had any depth or is free from numbskull mathematical errors. Expert editors have agreed when he tried to edit as A.K.Nole and Julian Birdbath that he was editing material beyond his WP:COMPETENCE. Probably he's better off sticking to spanking literature. It seems to be roughly his level. Mathsci (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Mathsci seems to overlook the fact that I created some articles which other editors also worked on and did not seem to think were "useless", "disruptive trolling", "silly", "hoax" or "fake": see for example Thin set (analysis) or Conformal welding which was worked on by an even more experienced editor before Mathsci decided to rewrite it. There are mechanisms for articles which are as bad as he claims to be improved or deleted, but he seems to have used none of them, and I should point out that Mathsci followed me to these articles, contrary to the impression he is giving. He criticises my redirects: none of them has been deleted or challenged by him or anyone else, so presumably he accepts that they are useful. The remarks he makes about other editors don't seem particularly relevant: Mathsci evidently wants to prove some kind of pattern, but he is not being very clear what it is, beyond his dislike for the edits of the users in question. Mathsci's argument that my edits are inadequate appears to be based on his own personal opinion, often repeated but never substantiated or supported by another editor. He probably is more of an expert on singular integral operators than me, but so what? Even though I had every right to edit articles related to his area of expertise, I have voluntarily undertaken not to do so. Ultra snozbarg (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Echigo mole's edits cannot be viewed in isolation. His stupid error here is making this request out of the blue at the same time as he done the identical thing elsewhere as Boodlepounce (talk page access now removed) and Hyperbaric oxygen. His edits on this account showed no skill, just that of sopying and using google books, and reflected all my edits at the time. So as usual Echigo mole is being a creep and a liar. Echigo mole has had no specialist postgradaute education in pure mathematics. Part of his inane trolling has been to create the pretence that he has. But most of his attempted mathematics edits were and are naive. Only a troll would create the fork Weyl–von Neumann–Berg theorem after I had created Weyl–von Neumann theorem. He is not an expert in analysis, operator algebras or operator theory. His stupidity in creating Weyl–von Neumann theorem was to copy the style of the original stub. The material has been part of a graduate lecture course I gave at Cambridge, so it could have been expanded beyond a simple statement. Unsurprisingly he did not notice that. Also his spelling in British English ("generalised"). Defect operator was similarly created as a trolling fork of Contraction (operator theory) after I significantly expanded it. (Echigo mole cannot even get the definition of invariant subpsace correct.) Likewise after I created Littlewood subordination theorem, along comes this creep and starts a trolling disambiguation page Subordination (function theory). Like wise conformal gluing, welding etc, followed my own writing of detailed material about exactly that (e.g. in Beltrami equation and other articles on singular integral operators). The first edit with this account was to create a redirect to oscillator representation, an article I created. That about sums up his attempts to edit. He was community banned for a reason. His intent is malicious disruption. Trying to run three simultaneous unblock requests is just part of that. This account Ultra snozbarg, as was the case when he was first reported, is just an unambiguous case of
Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Echigo mole's edits cannot be viewed in isolation. His stupid error here is making this request out of the blue at the same time as he done the identical thing elsewhere as Boodlepounce (talk page access now removed) and Hyperbaric oxygen. His edits on this account showed no skill, just that of sopying and using google books, and reflected all my edits at the time. So as usual Echigo mole is being a creep and a liar. Echigo mole has had no specialist postgradaute education in pure mathematics. Part of his inane trolling has been to create the pretence that he has. But most of his attempted mathematics edits were and are naive. Only a troll would create the fork Weyl–von Neumann–Berg theorem after I had created Weyl–von Neumann theorem. He is not an expert in analysis, operator algebras or operator theory. His stupidity in creating Weyl–von Neumann theorem was to copy the style of the original stub. The material has been part of a graduate lecture course I gave at Cambridge, so it could have been expanded beyond a simple statement. Unsurprisingly he did not notice that. Also his spelling in British English ("generalised"). Defect operator was similarly created as a trolling fork of Contraction (operator theory) after I significantly expanded it. (Echigo mole cannot even get the definition of invariant subpsace correct.) Likewise after I created Littlewood subordination theorem, along comes this creep and starts a trolling disambiguation page Subordination (function theory). Like wise conformal gluing, welding etc, followed my own writing of detailed material about exactly that (e.g. in Beltrami equation and other articles on singular integral operators). The first edit with this account was to create a redirect to oscillator representation, an article I created. That about sums up his attempts to edit. He was community banned for a reason. His intent is malicious disruption. Trying to run three simultaneous unblock requests is just part of that. This account Ultra snozbarg, as was the case when he was first reported, is just an unambiguous case of
- Mathsci seems to overlook the fact that I created some articles which other editors also worked on and did not seem to think were "useless", "disruptive trolling", "silly", "hoax" or "fake": see for example Thin set (analysis) or Conformal welding which was worked on by an even more experienced editor before Mathsci decided to rewrite it. There are mechanisms for articles which are as bad as he claims to be improved or deleted, but he seems to have used none of them, and I should point out that Mathsci followed me to these articles, contrary to the impression he is giving. He criticises my redirects: none of them has been deleted or challenged by him or anyone else, so presumably he accepts that they are useful. The remarks he makes about other editors don't seem particularly relevant: Mathsci evidently wants to prove some kind of pattern, but he is not being very clear what it is, beyond his dislike for the edits of the users in question. Mathsci's argument that my edits are inadequate appears to be based on his own personal opinion, often repeated but never substantiated or supported by another editor. He probably is more of an expert on singular integral operators than me, but so what? Even though I had every right to edit articles related to his area of expertise, I have voluntarily undertaken not to do so. Ultra snozbarg (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that this Echigo mole sock evidently followed me to specialist rarely edited articles where he was evidently intellectually completely out of his depth. I wrote detailed content on how to use singular integral operators to solve the probelm of conformal welding/gluing, etc. Then this sock troll created a few redirects related to that. He has no competence whatsoever concerning singular integral operators, which underlies this topic. I also wrote the content on the Weyl−von Neumann theorem. He then created his own silly fork article, changed by me to a redirect. Those edits were juat disruptive trolling. Echigo mole bahaves on WP like a little creep. He has created over 100 socks. So lying and dishonesty are w the norm for him. His socks were involved in a series of hoax articles on Provence. His socks have also attempted to fake having mathematical expertise. Yet at no stage, and in particular with this current account, has Echigo mole been able to add any mathematical content either that has had any depth or is free from numbskull mathematical errors. Expert editors have agreed when he tried to edit as A.K.Nole and Julian Birdbath that he was editing material beyond his WP:COMPETENCE. Probably he's better off sticking to spanking literature. It seems to be roughly his level. Mathsci (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Mathsci for providing some details of the case he has against my edits. I will address his points individually, but omit occasional words such as "troll", "creep", "liar", "fake" which do not seem to add value to the discussion. I also omit points which seem to relate to some other editor.
- His edits on this account showed no skill, just that of copying and using google books - unsubstantiated opinion and irrelevant
- and reflected all my edits at the time - incorrect as I show below
- Only a troll would create the fork Weyl–von Neumann–Berg theorem after I had created Weyl–von Neumann theorem - incorrect. My article was on an extension of the theorem by Berg to a wider context . The pseudo-deletion by Mathsci, redirecting to his article, has removed the Berg reference for no obvious benefit.
- His stupidity in creating Weyl–von Neumann theorem was to copy the style of the original stub - arguable but even if true why would it be stupid for one article to be similar in style to another article by an acknowledged expert?
- The material has been part of a graduate lecture course I gave at Cambridge, so it could have been expanded beyond a simple statement. Unsurprisingly he did not notice that - this does not seem to be evidence of anything. Articles get expanded over time by multiple authors. Starting off with a short article on a subject that can be expanded later does not seem to be evidence of wrong-doing so much as normal operating procedure on Wikipedia
- Also his spelling in British English ("generalised") - this is not evidence of wrong-doing
- Defect operator was similarly created as a fork of Contraction (operator theory) after I significantly expanded it - normal practice when an article is becoming too long and one topic is getting buried inside another, see WP:CFORK "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spinoffs ... This is acceptable"
- Likewise after I created Littlewood subordination theorem, starts a disambiguation page Subordination (function theory) - incorrect, that article was a stub on the general concept after Mathsci had written an article on one specialised subtopic, essentially a reverse spinoff: it was not a disambiguation page. Perhaps Mathsci is confusing it with Subordination (mathematics), a mathdab page I created to manage the various articles with this name (not all related to the topics under discussion) and which was subsequently merged to Subordination#mathematics by another editor. Let me point out that at least one other editor worked on Subordination (function theory) before Mathsci pseudo-deleted it without discussion by redirecting it to his specialised article. Creating and changing redirects and disambiguation pages is part of normal Wikpedia editing and there is no evidence that any other user found my work in this area in any way disruptive
- Like wise conformal gluing, welding etc, followed my own writing of detailed material about exactly that (e.g. in Beltrami equation and other articles on singular integral operators) - Mathsci is seriously confused here. I created a useful stub on Conformal welding in January 2012 and Mathsci did not mention it in Beltrami equation until 13:21 on 10 July 2012. It does not appear to be linked to in any other article. This seems to be evidence of exactly the opposite of what Mathsci claims. In the six months after I created it, other highly experienced editors worked on it without finding it "useless"
- The first edit with this account was to create a redirect to oscillator representation, an article I created - evidence of what?
In summary, Mathsci dislikes my edits and, perhaps, the fact that I have edited in the same area as him. No other editor has found fault with my articles or my edits. Is it not clear that Mathsci's opinion of my work is entirely coloured by his starting assumption that I can only be a troll, rather than an objective judgement. Still, as I say, if I am allowed to resume editing, as a sign of goodwill I will voluntarily agree to stay clear of these subjects in future and trust that there will be no further cause for friction between us. Ultra snozbarg (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- More idiocy from this troll sock. His edits were incompetent and naive. It's not a queston of liking or disliking. Echigo mole has no competence at Ph.D. level mathematics (e.g. K-homology). The probability that a newly created account would edit only articles related to mathematical articles that I had already been editing is zero. He should go and find something better to do with his time instead of arguing like a three-year old child. (Knitting or crochet, perhaps?) His British spelling, copying, etc, are additional factors. Plus the similarlity to all his other socks on wikipedia, who have both been creepy (in wikihounding) and lied. Ansatz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) argued interminably like this troll sock. Dennis Brown was not wrong to block this account per WP:DUCK Mathsci (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think this just about wraps it up. I have refuted Mathsci's specific points, and he is reduced to invective (mainly directed against other users), and repeated assertions which are not supported by any other user. I see from my notification tab that Mathsci has started to canvass a friendly admin trying to get them to rush through a decision in his favour (fortunately FPAS has sensibly declined to take any action). I remind the reader that the issue in question is: given that the only reasdon for blocking me was Mathsci's bare assertion that my edits were bad, that Mathsci has been unable to produce any evidence beoynd mere assertion that stands up to scrutiny, that Mathsci's complaint appears to be that I edited in areas he is interested in (in some cases months before he did) and I have voluntarily agreed to avoid those areas; given all those, I request to be allowed to return to editing constructively. Ultra snozbarg (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear. There seems to be no prospect at all of being unblocked. It is highly likely that the talk page access of this disruptive troll sock is revoked. Mathsci (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)