User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

About Me

Was I suppose ot stop editign the Page? I knwo you emaield me and sia d their may be an injunction, btu I am not aware of oen now and have edited it since.

If this si a violation, it was accedentla, but I jus htogut of it.

Anyway thanks.

ZAROVE 16:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is an injunction, you will be informed on your User Talk page. Charles Matthews 16:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq/Proposed_decision

Charles: re Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Proposed_decision - is it too late to quibble point 3 - see my talk comment there. William M. Connolley 17:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

So, I've put down a marker on this. It certainly does not override NPOV. Cos' nothing here does. But I don't think the ArbCom thought it did.

Other things. Obviously selective quotation can be bad. And some quotes might lend themselves perversely to that. Some authorities get some things wrong, or put them in a strangled kind of way. Or a given paper gives half a story, or is ambiguous given the state of knowledge at the time.

I could go on here, and so could you, I take it. The principle is clearly aimed at those hacking reputable things out of an article, for disreputable reasons. So, I agree we can have a principle like that, for the purposes of cases such as the one in question.

Charles Matthews 19:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Charles - I can see what the principle is *aimed at* of course. The problem is what it might also get used for! What is your "marker" - I don't see it. William M. Connolley 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

Well, I just mean I registered a caveat here-and-now. I can now raise it all on the ArbCom mailing list, and get some better understanding. It seems that everyone else takes these 'principles' more seriously than I do. I don't take them as rulings - I mean, I've only just been elected, but I didn't sign up to any of the old stuff the ArbCom did or said. I take them to be mainly expository, and a help to get cases into shape.

To tell the truth, there is just too much of this stuff around, for an incomer to nail it all down. Maybe in six months time I'll feel more attracted to issues of broad principle. Nothing yet has struck me as badly wrong that has been decided; things change, obviously, at the point where something annoying gets through. I just take it all to be reasonably flexible, at present. Not cut out to be a wikilawyer, you see; I'd prefer to be correctling typos, frankly. Charles Matthews 19:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but your here-and-now caveat will do no good when some bozo uses that decision to say "this is a peer-reviewed ref; it cannot be removed from the article according to the arbcomm". William M. Connolley 21:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But drafting things to be bozo-proof doesn't work. Bomb-proofing policies isn't a defence against wikilawyers, anyway, anyhow. This is not a policy: ArbCom doesn't make policy. Tell you what, you could start a policy page about this issue, to pre-empt misuse. We really can't do ArbCom principles, as conventionally understood, as drafts of policy. They are explanations of the way our collective tiny minds are working. Policies come up from the community, and are hammered out in proper wiki-fashion.

I do see what you're concerned about - anyone from inside the academic world would comprehend the issue that things could be misused. But policy development is the way to do it. I'd be quite happy to get this discussed internally on the ArbCom, once the case is closed. Charles Matthews 21:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from the above discussion that you already understand that ArbCom went too far in extending the policies. In fact if you look at the editing in this case you will see they fit current policies. All this is a minor issue. Wikipedia inability to generate an NPOV article on the issue of the 1948 war and the resulting pal exodus are what you should be concered about.

Zeq 07:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I'm saying there is this: the stated 'principle' is not sufficiently robust to be taken as a policy, without some further amplification. It is not actually the ArbCom's role to create policy. Charles Matthews 07:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This means that you have rulled not according to the policy ut according to your wish to ban me. If you would have looked at my edit and the policy you will see that the edits (as far as sources) fit the policy perfectly. The other side in this debate uses the same type of sources. But that is moot since Heptor (another pro-israeli editor that you voted to ban) have brought an academic source that confirm the quotes on the Mufti. And if you want to go further the article 1948 war is identified as an article to be based on the Hebrew version of the same article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. If you would like, I can translate this article for you and in it the Mufti role is explained in even greater deapth than in the English Wikipedia: The Mufti returned to Palestine to head the Arab armies after years in which he first cooperated with the Nazis and later escaped prosection as war criminal.

So you have a choice: Focus on my behaviour and keep the Pro-Palestinian gang editing Wikipedia articles to become one0sided POV and ommiting known historicalfacts (just because they don't favor the Palestinian POV) or you can accept my suggestion to take these two articles into a serious medaition which it;s goal is to make the the articles comply with Wikipeia policies.

Your choice. Have a great day.

Zeq 07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

PS once my identity would be known your choce on who to ban from these articles will receive a much wider meaning. My suggestion: Let's work together to fix the articles and after they are NPOV I will leave Wikipedia. Zeq 07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

For your reference here are those artyicles in the Hebrew Wiki:

http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99

http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA

Does it make sense to you that History will look completly different depend only on if one reads it in English Wiki or in Hebrew Wiki ?

As part of mediation I'll be glad to traslate these articles.

You do realise (a) that you are ignoring the point about behaviour and content, (b) you are trying to exploit a perfectly open and honest discussion about the implications (for science, mostly) of a principle I mentioned reservations about, and this reflects badly on you, and (c) if you had wished to impress anyone on Wikipedia with your identity, you could have edited openly, as William and I do? Highly-politicised articles are a very bad way to judge what we are doing here. Charles Matthews 08:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize that you are ending up with a ridiculus rulling. read this [1] and you will se that Heptor found a perfect source (even after you changed the rulls and stated in the ArbCom rulling that only scholarly sources can be used, suddenly making wesites, used all over Wikipedia, as "non verfiable sources".

I am not "exployting" anything. I am showing you that you are not even following your own set policies. That is all.

I have argued for a long time: What is needed in this issue is a mechanism to implement Wikipedia own NPOV policy. your self-rightchnous is your to keep and enjoy. I am after making the articles NPOV. Hopefully, this is also a goal you share.

btw, what are your own views about israel ? Do you support israel right to exist (in 67 borders) as a homeland of the Jewish people ? This would make you a zionist. But if you don't support israel right to exist as a homeland of of the Jewish people you are on the same side as Hamas, Fred, Ahminagad(Iranian president) so you are in good company: Keep banning pro-Israel editors from Wikipedia. (or join those people you hate in fixing these Wikipedia articles to make them NPOV) - your choice.

Zeq 08:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are very persistent, but I have not the slightest intention of discussing my views with you on Israel. Charles Matthews 08:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You no longer need to. We can see where you stand: To get rid of pro-Israel editors you are willing to ignore Wikipedia policies about NPOV. Zeq 08:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you like this in real life, by the way? Hectoring, full of negative assumptions about others, using unpleasant arguments just for effect? Charles Matthews 08:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only you don't care about NPOV but you think your roile in ArbCom allow you to violate the No perosanl attack policy. I herebyrequest that you recuse yourself from participating in my case on the grounds that you had made personal remarks about me, even outside the scope of Wikipedia. Zeq 09:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 08:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no. Far too easy for someone to use this kind of talk page discussion for that, posting every ten minutes and fishing for replies. Nice try. Charles Matthews 09:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not "Fishing". The personal attack about my life outside Wikipedia was your won initive, that came out of your won bias (toward my style or toward the opinion I represent or both). In nay case, you know I am right about the articles not being even close to NPOV (especially Nakba but you don't like me personally. So Now what are you going to do ?

banning me is also "too easy". Try to find a way to get rid of me and at the same time fix the articles. Surly you are smart enough to achive both goals . Zeq 09:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You called me 'not very civilized' before, since I wouldn't engage in discussion before voting on the case. I defend my judgement on that. Now you feel entitled to make a large number of postings to this page, with wild accusations. Please stop that now. You are achieving nothing. Charles Matthews 09:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing that is being achived is to expose Wikipedia systemtic Anti_israel bias. It is very clear that each time Zero comes up before ArbCom he ends up with a warnning but the pro-Israel editor with who he edit war is being banned:

[2]

You are just a chain in this bias, which is being exposed. Wjat is also funny to watch is that in the process People post lies which are also being exposed. Enjoy your time on ArbCom, fix some spelling mistakes if you have more time.Zeq 11:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As I say, you are achieving nothing by continuing to post accusations here. You will find nothing on Wikipedia to support any claim at all that I am biased in this matter. You might care to read some of the mathematical biographies I have created, instead of reiterating unfounded claims. Charles Matthews 11:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The bias is in the decision. There were two parties "edit warring" (after one side made compromise proposals that were refused and accepted mediation results that were rejected)

"ArbCom" choose (not for the first time) to ban the Pro israeli editors ONLY

The leading "Arbitor" has admited to be against israel and stated that "Wikipedia is full of Zionist propeganda"

So Bias or not bias ?

Zeq 18:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PS I saw you worked on Paul Erdos, here is another mathematical Biography for you to work on: Brendan_McKay - do you know him ? Zeq 18:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know McKay. I met Erdos a few times, played go with him twice. Now please stop repeating the same nonsense on this page. You seem to understand little or nothing about Wikipedia processes, and nothing about the ArbCom. You apparently don't understand the concept of 'counter-productive'. I am really not obliged to debate with you, just because 250 members of the community expressed confidence in me. Charles Matthews 19:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Relevance and hierarchy of sources

Hi Charles. Some articles in wikipedia have reached a high level of quality. I think at the beginning wiki-editors just write what they know and in fact introduce the way they see thinks. With time, articles'level become higher and higher with the contribution and the introduction of new material.

In parallel the risk of having quarrels that cannot be solved between wiki-editors become higher and higher because topics do not deal with what is "well known by most people" and that can be easily verified and to a compromise but deal with "details" of "facts" known or understood by few people. The compromise is therefore harder to reach. Misunderstanding and quarrels arise more likely.

I think this (one of) the heart(s) of the problem in the subjet treated by ArbCom concerning Zeq and Ian's case.

For historical articles that are highly controversial, I think a "neutral" way of evaluating relevance and hierarchy among sources should be found. For highly controversial topics, I think this could solve much problems because will determine what information to add or not or how. More in the current case that is what Zeq and Ian require in a way : a NPOV way of dealing with sources.

I have suggested some rules in the workshop. After reading your comments just above I realize that maybe in hard science this could not be applicable but the matter is different there. What do you thinnk about this : [3]. User:ChrisC 12:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry for to have deleted things. I didn't realize this.

Concerning your answer on the matter. I can understand that this is more complicated and indeed some people have different hats but where is the problem with that. I think you didn't take time to read the "9-rules" because they take into account the fact that several sources can be introduced. And if this doesn't take into account some problems, nothing prevent to add others, delete some and improve all this. User:ChrisC 13:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"The relevance of an academician CANNOT be disputed by wiki-editors." This isn't great. For example, it is now very common for academics in English (by doctorate or department) to write on issues of history.

Reasonable people can usually resolve such difficulties. Starting in the Israeli-Palestine arguments may make the issues very clear, but the solutions should not then be applied very generally in Wikipedia. There is a principle 'hard cases make bad law'. Trying to draft rules, based on such a case where everyone knows that propaganda is a major factor, that then apply everywhere (for example in science) is somewhat dangerous. Charles Matthews 13:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Richard. Thank you for your reply. I comment everything (but not in the order of your comments).

I agree about science. One step at a time I would say. But what do you concretely and precisely don't think is good in the "rule" you quote ? How can you consider NPOV the fact that wiki-editors would decide that the mind of an expert in his field of competence is not revelant ? In front of academicians (to be defined - I suggested PhD+ -) no wiki-editors can say : this is not revelant. At best, as I suggest, he could request to add "Following John Smith, Prof at MIT, bla bla bla". Do you have an example in mind that would illustrate why this is not good ?

Now in science. That is already that way it works, isn't it ? Publications are considered as the reference. And publications are only made by PhD students at least but in that case extremely often supported by their Master thesis. All others are made by PhD or Prof or ... So where is the problem ? Do you have in science an exemple where you would considere that it would be NPOV to prevent the introduction of an academician's mind on a topic of his competences ?

"reasonnable people can usually resolve ...". I don't agree. Zeq, Ian, Heptor, Zero and the others are reasonnable people but they didn't succeed in finding compromise. I started intervening in this article after their quarrelled. I soon discovered I had not the level of competence to introduce material in comparison with them. But I also noticed they but I also tried to "hear" them and I can tell you all of them are right and have good will. The problem is elsewhere and here banishment is not a solution. User:ChrisC 15:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know, Zeq has been making some completely unreasonable comments here: pure denigration and accusation.

In science, the issue is this: using quotations from scientific papers, properly peer-reviewed and all that, in a legalistic way, is not a correct approach. There are various ways to mislead. For example, statistical techniques can never prove that a drug is 100% safe. Any scientist will admit this. But if you use such 'admissions' badly in an article, you can mislead the reader. Therefore it is quite reasonable that the quotation is cut out, even if the person quoted is a Nobel Prize winner. This kind of situation is actually normal for science, though lawyers may not understand it.

If "any scientist will admit this" than a Nobel Prize Winner will do too and will never claim the contrary and so you will never have to delete such statements. Your example is not relevant. I would prefer illustrating your point by taking in consideration a scientific controversial theory : eg. scale relativity of Nottale. Most scientists claim this is complete nosense and I am convinced it is. Would you forbid his theory to be introduced in WP. Of course not because nobody have the competence to critize this and even if I have you will always be allowed to say that I claim I have and you are right. This is my point : we are not here to introduce our own know-how. As wiki-editors we are here to introduce as accuretely as possible what relevant people know. User:ChrisC 17:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My experience (at Acharya S, which is an almost impossible situation) is that NPOV can indeed be difficult, if one 'side' has low-quality references. I don't agree that, for that reason, low-quality references should appear here, in detail.

Of course. But then I would ask you or the ArbCom or whoever to define what is a poor reference. Because what Heptor showed are references taken from 3 different books and whose authors are historian, rabbi and politician. I remind you that this is not as easy as in hard science because here, nobody knows the truth and no experiment or calculation can be made to see if this is true or not.

I don't think these broadcast of Mufti must be introduced in the article but if we look at the situation : what Heptor introduced were better references than some references that can be found in some articles. And Ian and Zero didn't show any references - from a higher level - that prove the contrary. They just note they didn't find any reference showing the contrary. So what ? Is Zeq banned because he is not polite and Heptor because he was on Zeq's side while Ian and Zero are more diplomat and therefore their POV deserve more room in WP ? -> the heart of the matter of this case is to determine what is a relevant source and in case of dispute, if we can establish a hierarchy between them.

For example it is better to have them given as external links, and make annotations such as 'partisan website'.

I agree with you. Completely. But this should be given to people as a rule. That could be a solution to the case.

rule 10 : if source comes from people that can be showed to be propagandist (to be defined) reference will only be allowed to be put at the end of the article with a label stating "partisan website" or "partisan book".

And in general, I think NPOV may not give 'perfect' articles.

I agree. I had suggested that Zeq and Ian wrote each an entire paragraph where they could develop the facts with a more partisan way and that would have been titled : "pro israelian point of view" - "pro palestinian point of view".

In these cases we sometimes have to wait, until better sources become available. If editors are impatient - which is the major problem with many political issues here - there can be big problems even if everyone is sincere. I prefer the kind of 'sincerity' which understands what WP is for, and admits that its purposes are not compatible with some kinds of advocacy. Charles Matthews 15:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Article with political issues do not have their place in wikipedia. That is clear. But they are there. And this is the responsability of administrators to deal with the problem they generate. The recent problem with that journalist in the USA that sue WP because an article claimed he had spent 13 years in the USSR is an example. Everybody can play with a toy but if the toy may be dangerous measures has to be taken. WP has all much time to solve the issues BUT time alone will not solve them...

NB sorry for the poor English. My mother langage is French. I am a Belgian.

It is the evening here. I stop here. Have a nice day. :-) User:ChrisC 17:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nous pouvons continuer par français, si vous le voulez. En tout cas, j'ai voulu vous expliquer un peu pourquoi William et moi, nous disputions ici à propos des sciences. Je ne trouve pas les questions du cas Zeq tellement sympas. Charles Matthews 17:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The quality of sources in the case of Palestinian exodus is similar. Benny Morris is on one side - his quotes fill the article. On the other side is Efraim Karsh who is a professor of a distinguish university in London. Every time I interduced his POV Zero would delete it. This whole process of ArbCom is totaly biased because they never bothered to look at the whole evidence. But it will come back, I am counting on it. Infact the more they go against me the better. It only shows their inability to get to the bottom of the issue and to come up with solutions that would make the article NPOV. I have so far failed in my attempts to make the articleNPOV but so did Aileen (who is a German Wikipedia admin and so did many other editors . The simple fact that this article is "owned" by a group of Pro-Palestinians propagdist is something that the honolarble "ArbCom" does not care. What a joke. Zeq 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Murchison Falls

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Phronima 15:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think cutting out under 20 words of slack verbiage is 'minor'. Don't you? Charles Matthews 15:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DA

I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you voted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision. I would strongly urge you to reconsider the 6-month ban of T-Man. I feel I am much to blame for his behaviour, and I truly believe that given a chance he will not again act inappropriately. Probation gives the admins sufficient control over him (and me) in case we step out of line again. I really feel badly for T-man and the current situation, and I fear a 6-month ban will mean a possible permanent loss of this obviously talented and comic-knowledgable individual. Dyslexic agnostic 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero

Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material .

• [4]

• [5]

• [6]

• [7]

• [8]

This maybe of value:

• [9] it is clear that Zero is using wikipedia against this directive in his case from 2004:

• "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".

Zeq 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

fundamental theorem of projective geometry/ annihilator

Hi,

as discussed before, I was not satisfied with the fundamental theorem of projective geometry page as it didn't even mention nonsingular semilinear maps. I made a collineation page :

Collineation

Where i explain collineations and what the fundamental theorem of projective geometry says about them

However on the Fundamental theorem of projective geometry my several attemps to redirect it to collineation page have failed? What did I do wrong?

Also, while my decision to just redirect might be harsh, I do plan on elaborating a bit in the future, about correlations, collineation group, polarities,etc...

A final question : my english lets me down here. When you consider a space V and its dual space V', you can map every subspace W of V to the set of dual vectors becoming zero on it. The bigger W, the smaller its image under that map. Is that called annihilator? Is that common terminology worldwide? It is interesting for me as every correlation of V to W, comes down to a collineation of V to W's dual space, thus the fundamental theorem also immediately helps you finding all correlations (and this leads to polarities...)

Evilbu 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The page is moved now. There can be some strange things that happen when the site is slow, because the pages are read from a cache, and changes are not visible immediately.

Subspaces: yes, the annihilator of a subspace is the subset of the dual of linear functionals that are zero on the subspace. Charles Matthews 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see it just took some time. Hmm, annihilators so I am correct, but I probably couldn't just write that, there should be an annihilator page for vector spaces as well (for rings there is already one). However, I am only familiar with the finite dimensional case, that's what holds me back now. Evilbu 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that the theory is missing, and should be added to dual space. Charles Matthews 22:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

T-Man ban

I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is well established that we can do those things. T-Man may well have been ill-advised to complain, from such a weak position. But the case was accepted on the usual basis, and, as James F. said, out of concern at the personal attacks that were going on. :Charles Matthews 08:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

science

Nous pouvons continuer par français, si vous le voulez. En tout cas, j'ai voulu vous expliquer un peu pourquoi William et moi, nous disputions ici à propos des sciences. Je ne trouve pas les questions du cas Zeq tellement sympas. Charles Matthews 17:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL ou MDR !! J'espère que mon anglais n'est pas trop mauvais. Si j'ai bien compris William craint les dérives que peut avoir un des points en cours de vote par l'ArbCom. C'est vrai que quand on veut établir des règles, il faut avoir envisagé toutes les conséquences. Et on en oublie toujours... Mais bon, les articles scientifiques sont plus faciles à traiter. Les sciences dures sont par essence plus objectives. Thanks for all. See you. A bientôt. Tschuss... :-) User:ChrisC 09:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood William's point. In fact he considers nothing should be forbiden and the the key rule is : the article must be balanced. As a consequence even a scholar reference could be deleted if its introduction de-balance an article... Is that the idea he developed ? User:ChrisC 17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the arguments. Against that, 'balance' is not policy, because balance ≠ NPOV. In the more dialectical view, if you have 'too much' discussion of one topic in an article, you can't just kill the discussion to keep balance: you mnay need a new page. Charles Matthews 11:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

As a retalvly new user at Wikipedia I have only came accross this page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes in part of your decision in my ArbCom case.

It is enfortunate that I was not ware of this page before cause it would have allowed me ways to seeq what i have ben looking for in the case of Artcle Palestinia_Exodus which is ways to get wider participations and mediators.

I have noticed that ArbCom is mentioned only as "last resort"

Therefor I would like to make a motion to suspend the ArbCom case and to first ensure the dispute over this article goes through all the steps mention in the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes policy. If I am not mistaken it is actually a pre-condition to any ArbCom case.

Thank You. Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• As I have mentioned many times I would not mind voluntarlity banning myself from this article once a mechanism to make it NPOV is found.

Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are supposed to have tried other methods before coming to the ArbCom. The case has been accepted now. Often cases are rejected for that very reason; however, the ArbCom has the right to accept anything brought. As I have tried to explain, we cannot directly rule on the article content, NPOV or not. And once a case is over, the content may change for other reasons.

The best advice I can give you: don't expand your difficulties with other editors. If there is a ban, you can ask for it to be lifted, after 3 months for example. The articles will certainly still be there. My personal opinion is that, for articles which are highly sensitive for political reasons, it is very desirable that everyone should be able to edit. Therefore, I am sympathetic to the idea that you should not be banned indefinitely from editing there. But if there is fighting every day in the editing, that is no good either. Charles Matthews 14:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You have already signed your name on a vote to ban me indefently. Honestly: I like it. It will help cure me from my Wikipedia addiction.

And seriously for a minute. I have not been disrupting Wikipedia. I have been disrupting those who turn Wikipedia into a tool to spread political propeganda. Those people are also on this very same ArbCom case. One of those people has been in front of ArbCom before on similar case and the descision was to ban the pro_israeli editor from all articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You should apply what ever measures you desire, but apply them equally to both groups of editors.

And if you want to know more about me, look at articles I have "succesfully" disrupted:

Israeli Arabs is much better now than it was 3 month ago. (check it - even a glance will show you that)

West bank barrier is much better now than it was 4 month ago. (check it)

If ArbCom would not have "disrupted" me even nakba will get fix (with or without me) - this should be your goal in what ever descision you take. I can be a serious editor and don't need you to give me a carrot in 3 months.

I suggested that Wikipedia come up with a system (I can help) that reduce to zero the insentive to vandalaize or to put propeganda that will soon be removed.

Zeq 21:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, you could learn to listen better. If I say that the ArbCom does not deal directly with content, why do you bang on about content? If I say that I think it is better that you are not banned indefinitely, why can't you take the point? Which is that you can apply to have the ban lifted, if there is some chance that you will then have shown yourself a more constructive editor? Charles Matthews 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You Know You should pay more attention to facts and evidence and motions. You think your job is to ban me so just ban me. If you think your job is to help Wikipedia implemnt it's NPOV and othr policies find a way to do your job - the best that you understand it to be. I am a constructibve editor and the only problem is that ArbCom has allowed a gang of pro-Palestinian propeganda to "own" an article on which even mediation is refused. I am not intersted in any "ban lifted". could not care less if it is "lifted" or not. I am only intrested to help Wikipedia implemnet it's NPOV policy on that article. Is that clear ? Zeq 06:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tao

Dear Charles, yes, I have, but feel free to remove the info if the unofficial things should not be posted. Best, LM --Lumidek 23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the policy is fairly clear on sources. I'll move these to the talk pages as 'rumours'. Charles Matthews 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My arbitration case

Hi,

As you know, I am one of the editors in danger of getting banned from 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I hope you will look examine the actual issue carefully before placing your vote. At least do take a look at some other proposed proposed decisions in the Workshop.

I know Zeq has been utterly counter-productive, at times rude during this case. I do not support his style, and tried to tell him to take it easy per e-mail a couple of times, apparently without success.

I hope that the arbitration case will get to the issue, which is (for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War) the legitimacy of the quotations of Haj Amin al-Husayni. Two quotations are disputed, you will find sources here , and here.

With best regards, -- Heptor _talk 23:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to ask me to look again at the findings of fact. I will consider all my votes in this case again, before the case is closed. Charles Matthews 09:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do; thanks. Also, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page or per e-mail if you think that I left something unclear. -- Heptor _talk 03:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt

A final decision has been reached in this case, and it has been closed.

For the arbitration committee--Tony Sidaway 06:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Un/In

Actually, both are right. I'm changing it back, because I think it sounds more natural. Infinity0 ^talk 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nvmd, realised it was a derivative of essence rather than essential. Infinity0 ^talk 19:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:CarlHewitt

I noticed you deleted Talk:CarlHewitt. Isn't the more correct thing to do to delete the user page and blank the talk page? As far as I can tell, this has been the convention recently. –Joke 02:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User's request, and discussed among the ArbCom as his case closed and he let us know he was leaving. Charles Matthews 08:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Licorne show

Just making sure that everyone who gets into a discussion with Licorne knows about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne - we've been here a while, and you may have seen it before.... --Alvestrand 15:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know why he thinks he can win a revert war, given the odds. We carry on trying the Talk Page route, for a bit. Charles Matthews 15:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You may have missed some Licorne-ism: [10] William M. Connolley 11:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There's now an ArbCom case proposed, BTW. Charles Matthews 11:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed. I even unblocked Licorne to let him answer the RFA but I don't think he did :-( A case for an emergency injunction perhaps? William M. Connolley 12:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilaire Belloc

If a red link is obsolete or unlikely to be updated, sometime I delete them. I also delete red links by creating new pages from the red linked subjects and enter all the (non copy-wrighted) info I can, hoping others will add to it. I also correct grammar, spelling, syntax, and, when I come across it, POV.

There are just way too many insignificant, obsolete, useless red links for some not to be removed, they are distracting. If anyone wants to create a page about a subject no longer red linked, who's stopping them. Sorry it has upset you so much.

Rms125a@hotmail.com 23:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilaire Belloc

If a red link is obsolete or unlikely to be updated, sometime I delete them. I also delete red links by creating new pages from the red linked subjects and enter all the (non copy-wrighted) info I can, hoping others will add to it. I also correct grammar, spelling, syntax, and, when I come across it, POV.

There are just way too many insignificant, obsolete, useless red links for some not to be removed, they are distracting. If anyone wants to create a page about a subject no longer red linked, who's stopping them.

Rms125a@hotmail.com 23:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That is completely negative, and goes entirely against the development of WP.

You are not entitled to judge whether a red link is 'obsolete'. Whatever do you mean by that? Someone might come along tomorrow and create the page.

There are just way too many insignificant, obsolete, useless red links for some not to be removed, they are distracting. No, you are not entitled to say that.

If anyone wants to create a page about a subject no longer red linked, who's stopping them. Firstly, the red link is a prompt to people to do just that. Second, if they do create a page, they or someone else needs to put back exactly the link you have removed. That is duplicated effort, producing absolutely no gain.

You are completely out of line on this.

Charles Matthews 08:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Arica School

Hi Charles, you reverted Pwforaker on [[africa School recently. He'd done a large edit, adding text that was <ahem> somewhat less than neutral. We've had an email to the Foundation from someone connected with the school, to say that Pwforaker's edit was correcting a lot of inaccuracies in the article and asking how they could get these corrections added. I've directed them to the talk page, and suggeted they make smaller and more netural edits - could you keep an eye out for these and see if he needs any help and guidance? Hopefully he can avoid getting reverted this time. Many thanks -- sannse (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I had an email too. I replied to the effect that if the next text is pasted onto the Talk page, we can incorporate things by that route. Charles Matthews 08:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotient field or Field of fractions

I've proposed on Talk:Quotient field to rename the page. I'd be very grateful to hear your comments there on what you think - thanks! — ciphergoth 09:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Recognition

Did you see that Peter Freyd quoted a paragraph we coauthored from Disjunction and existence properties in an argument on the categories list? Recognition at last! Our labours are not in vain! --- Charles Stewart(talk) 18:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, Categories, Allegories makes some interesting points about he foundations of category theory. Perhaps we could return the compliment, by including some of them. Charles Matthews 19:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I emailed Peter, and he just rep[lied saying that the next paragraph in his post, which I asked to steal, came from there... --- Charles Stewart(talk) 20:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've incorporated Peter's paragraph, though that leaves the article a bit technical, which I'll sort out in due course. You said something about a striking conjecture similar to Artin's conjecture on primitive roots: if arbcom allows you time off to edit articles, might you be interested in writing this up? --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am well used to being ignored

But I must restate the problems I have here. First of all, the statement of "insertion of POV" as a bannable offense is vague and open to interpretation, and I don't trust administrators, many of whom edit from a point of view that is ideologically closer to Ruy Lopez than to myself. Second, Ruy Lopez has done more than enough to receive a ban on KR related articles, in fact all articles (if anyone here bothered to look at the evidence). I have seen others banned from articles altogether for commiting lesser or equal crimes. It is disturbing that the Arbcom has not come up with a "finding of fact" condemning him of POV pushing. Third, there is no guarentee that his sockpuppets would be detected if he used a proxy or masked his IP. The provision I placed in the Workshop (which was ignored) called for the banning of people reasonably believed to be Ruy Lopez (i.e. making very similar edits). The Arbcom had no problem passing the same thing in a decision involving a certain User:Beckjord. Thank you. CJK 00:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly POV-pushing requires interpretation, when it comes to sanctions. Only a tiny fraction of those pushing a point of view get into trouble for it; and banning is an extreme measure, only likely to be under consideration for those who are seen to persist with a pattern of edits, when the nature of the policy they are breaking is fully understood by them.

You can't really expect me to second-guess the ArbCom on what precisely to do about Ruy Lopez. If as much as an RfC is brought against any user making similar edits, it would attract much attention. And I don't see that we have to anticipate 'undetectable sockpuppetry'. Certainly not by trying to legislate against all who may have similar views. Arbitration is actually supposed to discriminate between cases, rather than apply any sort of precedents. So we deal with the Beckjords as seems fit, and don't have to get bogged down in the argument from setting a precedent. Charles Matthews 09:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

ZAROVE

I've requested arbitration now. --Michael Snow 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I think that we have a misunderstanding here. I usually avoid administrators, but this situation calls for action to crack down on a rouge user, whose violations have been documented. What I meant was that considering Ruy Lopez was receiving punishment based on his edits, logically even if some of the suspected aren't Ruy Lopez sockpuppets, they are still commiting the same wrong doing. And there is proof that Ruy Lopez uses proxies or masks his IP so that often relationships between users cannot be determined. Some previous conclusions by the Arbcom show that they don't always shy away from these measures. Perhaps you thought I was demanding a crackdown on all users who hold his views, which would not be true. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted me. Thank you once again. CJK 00:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You can bring any related matter to my attention, if it comes up, and if it appears not to be actively looked into. Charles Matthews 08:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re Kirillov orbit theory

Regarding your edit summary about cross-fertilization bewteen that article and Kirillov character formula. The article is still in very primitive state, and I will eventually do more on it, at least the basic theorem for nilpotent groups. Eventually I would like to tie it to system of imprimitivity and Stone-von Neumann theorem. Don't expect too much too quickly, though.

As I mentioned in an edit summary (let's keep Oleg-the-Bot happy) my historical knowledge about this is truly pathetic. I hope I don't piss anybody off.--CSTAR 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you know this [11] by Vogan? Charles Matthews 08:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I had seen this review, although I prefer Kirillov's original paper for the nilpotent case. I have a Kirillov book published by MIR back in the old days of the cold war and which I bought for almost nothing. Also the historical background is largely missing from Vogan's overview. That is particularly important for an encyclopedia. Also Vogan's speculations on the relation between QM and classical mechanics are somewhat panglossian.--CSTAR 20:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the evidence

Hi Charles,

Your bias toward me was clear. But as a math proffesional I wonder if you would be kind enough to look at the evidence:

Please review this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Evidence#Evidence_ignored_by_ArbCom Thanks ! Zeq 20:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have a bias for anyone who comes here, just to build up the site. Anyone else I class as having a personal agenda, and they should be careful to fit in with the policies. For example, civility. Charles Matthews 14:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

request for help/opinion block design

Hello,

reply doesn't seem to come on the block design page :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_design

I am taking a class on finite geometry right now, and both with the intention of learning/contributing, I took a look at that page.

I find it to be very confusing. My main difficulty is that the title is block design, then it explains a 2 design, then t designs, then it saids that usually two designs are called block designs. Wouldn't it be better if the title were changed to t-designs. If so, plz tell me how to change a title.

this is what definition i saw $S_{\lambda }(t,k;v)$ is a t design if there are v points, k points on every block, through any distinct t points there are exactly $\lambda$ blocks

apart from divisibility conditions, they are independent, while b, the number of blocks, and r, the number of blocks through a point, are not independent.

when $\lambda =1$ it is a Steiner system

when$t=2$ it is a block design

It is better to see blocks as elements, that are incident with points, not as sets of points (otherwise you assume there are no repeated blocks)

Do you agree with these definitions and properties?

Any hints or comments are welcome.

Evilbu 15:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Trend Estimate with Auto-Correlated Data

Charles: The article, Trend estimate, is an interesting one. I just wonder if you have readily available detailed information to add to the section about auto-correlated data. I am trying to learn about the topic from papers and textbooks. --Roland 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You may mean trend estimation. I'm not much of a statistician, in fact. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert's fifth problem

All of WAREL's edits are a matter of concern, due to his previous actions.

Are you aware of the exact contribution of Yamabe to the solution of this problem? Mathworld says that the solvable case was completed in 1952 by Montgomery and Zippin, and that Yamabe "combined" the results in 1953. Does the article give a correct impression at present? Elroch 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not so bad. Charles Matthews 06:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Henry Sumner Maine

Dear Charles My watch list shows you edited the entry on Maine, my great great grandfather, but I am new to Wikipedia and cannot quite see what changes you have made. Guide me Sibadd 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I was working on the format of the references, only, at Henry James Sumner Maine. If you go to the page history you can click to see the difference from the previous version displayed. Basically I was putting in bullet points, which is the house style, to display each reference on its own line. I also moved Maine's own book above the references. I see this needs tidying up. Charles Matthews 06:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

bounded operators on Banach space

Hi Charles. I've just discovered a discussion about some apparently incorrect material at bounded operator which arrived there from an addition of yours to operator norm a long time back in 2003. I was interested in possible repairs to the material, I wonder if you could comment at Talk:bounded operator. Thanks. -lethe ^{talk +} 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review board nomination

Charles, I would like your permission to nominate you to the proposed Wikipedia:Scientific peer review board. I understand that you may well be stretched thin, but even a small amount of attention would be appreciated. For example, you might list / choose others who would perform the necessary detailed work. Alternatively, I might, with your permission, explicitly state this possibility on Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review --Ancheta Wis 17:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, go ahead. Charles Matthews 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I found it hard to finde a article of yours which you think is the good or has the potential to become featured. For a board member I think it is necessary to have written a long article themselves. So to vote for you a article as example would be great!--Stone 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There a choice of nearly 700 articles at User:Charles Matthews/New - mathematics. Curry-Howard is one of the longer ones, I suppose. Charles Matthews 15:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

22/7 and all that

Hello. Could you please vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_22_over_7_exceeds_π?

Some people are actually saying any article devoted to a partiucalar mathematical proof is non-encyclopedic and should be deleted! Or that all articles primarily for mathematicians, that the general reader will not understand, should be deleted. Michael Hardy 17:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Iron Mike

Hi there. Just wanted to see if your linking Robert Ingersoll Aitken means that a) you are creating an article for him, b) you want me to create an article for him, or c) none of the above. I figured maybe it was a roundabout way of giving me a peer review comment, so if you want I will try to come up with an article for him. But if you're already making one, I don't want to step on your toes. Just let me know. Thanks! Kafziel 20:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's just that I'm working on Aitken right now. It was the second reference I'd seen to RIA, so we should have an article. Charles Matthews 20:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! I will start one ASAP. Thanks! Kafziel 20:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Started the article. Kafziel 20:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put articles in the main Lists category

Instead take the time to find the best Lists subcategory for it. Thanks. --JeffW 20:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't tell others how to spend their time. Goes better that way. If that's what you feel, I can not bother to add that category at all. Any improvement? Charles Matthews 20:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Copy of Message at User talk:Mushroom

I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:

This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,

Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [12] you wrote:

"See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [13] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.

However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:

"Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."

Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [14], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).

Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.

Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21],etc. This suggests that DW alias Ted Wilkes has created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 23:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)