User talk:Mathsci/Archive 19

NowCommons: File:Gromov.jpeg

File:Gromov.jpeg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Mikhaïl Gromov.jpeg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Mikhaïl Gromov.jpeg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work on Quantum KZ equations

Henry Delforn (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

you have an email

I sent you an email about that review. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Merci. Je t'ai envoyé une réponse avec un lien à l'article. @+, Mathsci (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at MfD

Re [1]. I am not surprised that people occasionally accuse me of being on the fringe side when I try to correct problems caused by an uncritical "debunking" mindset, but you would be surprised how rarely it happens. Currently I am only aware of two instances: When ScienceApologist famously announced he would get me "fired for loving homeopathy" [2] (unfortunately the reactions to this were out of all proportion), and when Fyslee (now BullRangifer) claimed that I was acting as a meatpuppet for the banned user who was the target of my (too subtle, according to Fyslee) sarcasm here, after I found some pretty damning evidence about his real-life activities. As it happens, Fyslee is a strong believer in the minority position that the placebo effect does absolutely nothing other than distort studies [3]. My personal beliefs about alternative medicine aren't particularly relevant, so I don't repeat them all the time, but occasionally I do mention something: [4][5].

Please don't spread this meme of my non-neutrality; or if you still believe it's true I would expect that you make a better effort than Fyslee to prove it. [6] --Hans Adler (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my email. And to clarify, of course I don't think you're either non-neutral or fringe. Everybody (including me) has the tendency to over-react a little, especially in the back alleys of wikipedia. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems I overreacted. Sorry for that. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mathsci. You have new messages at VirtualSteve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--VS ^talk 02:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Checklist at wiki~link

Crank describes to a tee somebody you're dealing with. 72.70.20.20 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

r

Thanks

For this excellent contribution to an absurd MfD. [7] Definitely one of the best so far. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your email

Hello Mathsci, I am replying here because I prefer to keep this conversation on-wiki as much as possible. I gave you a warning because your question was an inappropriate wisecrack. No, I was not looking to block you. You removed the question, and, as far as I was concerned, the situation was resolved. I'm not sure why you've chosen to continue it now. I have not been watching your page or that article since you redacted the question I found objectionable (though i will watch this page now for any reply you care to make). I most certainly am not "against content editors"; I'm not sure why you think that. I definitely appreciate them. Content contributing does not give license for rudeness, however. You mention another editor; if you chose to look through my edits, you will see that not all of my interactions with that editor have been postive. I try to act in a neutral manner however, and while I have had negative interactions with him, I have also had positive. Where I think an editor is wrong, I will say so; where I think the person is correct, I will say that as well. You think I have acted in an immature manner; I disagree. I hope that we can have more positive interactions in the future. LadyofShalott 04:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Please see WP:ANI#Block review - uninvolved admin request for a discussion partly involving your edits and comments related to Butcher group. --auburnpilot talk 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Happily I was asleep. Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In recognition of your creation of the fine article Château of Vauvenargues, which does not even exist yet in fr:WP! Ohconfucius (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

So why KDE instead of GNOME? ([8]) MastCell ^Talk 07:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

He he he. Probably because it used to be the default option with Mandrake/Mandriva and Suse. I have used ARM versions of linux on my little Zauruses, Collie and Shepherd, and a Nokia 770 - I think that's the Matchbox interface. I suppose I'm just hopelessly old fashioned. That happens at my age. It could be either midlife crisis, male menopause or presenile dementia - you're the medical expert :-) Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Races

I followed the link you provided, thank you. It led to a reference on afrocentrism. That makes it relevant for an article on afrocentrism, not on ancient Egyptian race. Now, I would expect that people (I am talking about non-Wikipedians) who participate in a debate over the race of ancient Egyptians would include Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists, and perhaps others, and any article on the controversy should lay out th different points of view clearly. But we should not conflate the article on a particular debate with an article on a particular point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The introductory chapter by the editors contains a long survey on Egyptology, Arch and Anth on Africa and in Africa, etc. There is also an article on Black Athena by North which directly criticizes the rejection of usual academic methods on the issues of race. The collection of articles and indeed the 2000 conference itself was aimed at providing a resource for current trends in African Arch and Anth, with particular emphasis on Egyptology. I agree that before writing an article like this, the first step to be taken is to amass as much relevant secondary mainstream literature as possible. This has not happened so far. As in anthropology, there are very few egyptologists who have any desire to contribute to wikipedia (I've spoken to 2 so far). However, there are texts - like the 2000 UCL conference proceedings - which give balanced accounts by leading academics. I agree with almost everything you have written and don't quite know why this particular article with this particular title should exist at all. Mathsci (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Using the articles on Evolution, and on the Evolution-Creationism controversy as my model, I am trying very carefully to distinguish between mainstream research by arcehologists, anthropologists, an historians, versus popular controversies. I do not know the source you cite, but it sounds to me like it is a superb source for an article on Egyptian history. But I do believe that there are many people who think that the ancient Egyptians looked like Yul Brenner and Anne Baxter (just like there are others who think they looked like Sidney Poitier). So I see nothing wrong with an article on popular misconceptions and debates (i.e., controversy) over the race of ancient Egyptians. Such an article should not try to say that one side is right and the other is wrong. Instead, it should contextualize the controversy in terms of the changing context of race relations in the US and perhaps the UK; this would be an article that is about us, today (or over the past hundred or hundred and fifty years), not an article that is really about ancient Egyptians. And the article on ancient Egyptians should not be about popular controversies, it should just provide accounts of the mainstream science and history. Now, perhaps the title of the "controversy" artichle should be changed. (I also fully understand why you feel that the edits of certain users, to the article, only muddied the waters and were counter-productive.) But I cannot see why you object to the existence of the article. It seems to me to be a valid article on cultural/intellectual history of modern discourses on race. As any anthroologist knows, people use the past all the time as a way of talking about the present. This seems to be one such occasion. We can use primary sources to document the different sides of the controversy. I would think there would be good articles out there that analyze the controversy in terms of contemporary racial politics. I wish editors would spend time trying to find those sources. But insisting that the article solely be about "afrocentrism" is unnecessarily condescending and inflammatory, it makes it sound like only Blacks say stupid things about history when Whites say stupid things about history at least as often. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about an article on views of Ancient Egyptians in popular culture, although now that you mention it ... I am a great fan of Carry on Cleo and mistakenly remember Barbara Windsor as the original Cleo (she was not). That would make Shakespeare's Cleopatra the owner of an East End pub named after one of the longest reigning monarchs in the British Empire, who gave birth to two highly disreputable sons. Glisteningly white, pert and petite, yet ample, fluent in cockney, false eyelashes fluttering, that would make Cleopatra a friend of the notorious Kray twins. What an article :-) More seriously, any article with "race" in the title is courting problems on wikipedia, as I think we know. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but in a way I think the success or failure of Wikipedia depends on our ability to deal with this. The Race article is actually pretty good and has been relatively stable for some time. Frankly, I think there are more racist White editors at Wikipedia than racist Black editors ... both are a problem, but we usually do better stamping out black racists than white racists, perhaps because their racism so often takes the form of systematic bias. Be that as it may (even if everything i just wrote is wrong) I think we can agree that science, history, and anthropological knowledge are routinely politicized. One way to deal with this is to write rigorous scholarly articles and I think the articles on Evolution and Race do this. But I also think we need good article on the politicization of science, if we are to educate the public. We have an evolution versus creationism controversy article. We need more articles like that. If your library has the book Mickey Mouse History by Mike Wallace, check it out, you will see a great analysis of several instances of the politicization of history in the US. Wallace is a real historian. There is a book by a couple of anthropologists on "National Geographic" that does something similar. Analyzing the use of purportedly scientific knowledge to support a political agenda or to confirm cultural biases is itself a legitimate object of historical/sociological/anthropological study and we need more articles that present such analysis. History is not just the study of "what happened" and if all of our history articles are of this kind, we do a tremendous disservice to modern academic history. History is also about what kinds of stories people tell, and how people tell stories, and why. We need articles on such topics and it seems to me that Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy could be a great article illustrating this other dimension of historical (and sociological/anthropological) study. The real question, the scarey one we are all avoiding, is, as the number of Wikipedia editors keeps expanding, why doesn't it come to include more people - hey, any people - who do this kind of research? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that my egyptologist friends won't edit wikipedia. It is a problem attracting experts to write on these subjects. Even experts can disagree: you and Dbachmann have quite different but often equally valid approaches to articles. Most people prefer writing about current events, comic strips, soap operas, etc. One solution is to tempt your friends and colleagues to dabble - that's how I started editing mathematics articles. Mathsci (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the magic pills here is figuring out the distinctin between a POV and a content fork. When there are truly conflicts where both sides have valid points and basic policy (NPOV, NOR, V) on their side, a content fork is often the solution. But it is certainly true that life is much easier if you are editing an article on a non-controversial topic. I really think we need a policy on the difference between what is notable because it is widely believed by lay-people, versus notable because of a consensus of expert opinion. The problem is, we have guidelines spelling out pseudoscience and fringe theories, but there is sure a third category of beliefs that may be pseudoscience orr fring in a scientific context, but are nevertheless widely held beliefs. Anthropologists just call that "culture" and there has to be a place in anthropology for describing it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at William M. Connolley rfar

Please refrain from making any further adjustments to the list of parties at the William M. Connolley (2nd) arbitration request. It is likely that any edit warring in that thread will, as of this notice, be met with a block. AGK 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As I've written on your talk page, I've replied by email. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(I have replied on my user talk page.) AGK 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Mathsci. Further to my comment on Rlevse's talk page, I would like to emphasise the importance of avoiding posting disruptive comments to arbitration case pages. (Posts like this one are particularly unwelcome.) Additionally, be advised that any parties who do find themselves unable to avoid editing the case pages in an unhelpful manner are likely to find their accounts blocked for disruption. If I can assist you at any point during the arbitration case, my user talk page is always open. Thanks, AGK 11:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. I have already refactored/removed some comments there and will look carefully at the rest. I've already indicated to Stephen Bain by email that I would be avoiding highly volatile talk pages like this, in particular where baiting can occur. I have little or no experience of this kind of editing environment so you are providing very helpful guidance. My attitude now is that, even if I see something that seems to be a misrepresentation during this complicated case, it should just go ignored. As you can see I'm concentrating on namespace editing, which is much more fun. Cheers and thanks again, Mathsci (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Focussing on mainspace editing is a very healthy attitude: Arbitration is rarely a pleasant place to work in. On misrepresentations: If an editor has posted a comment about you or another editor that is incorrect or not based on evidence and fact, then you are free to (and, often, you probably should) rebut the remark. The key to staying on the good side of the clerks' and the arbitrators' banhammer is to rebut in a professional manner—and not to play "tit for tat." Happy editing. AGK 12:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Arkady Renkov

Hi Mathsci. I believe Arkady Renkov may be A.K.Nole, although I'm not sure if I have enough evidence to warrant a checkuser yet. Arkady Renkov edited between April 2, 2009 and April 21, 2009 before taking a break, returning on July 4, 2009. A.K.Nole edited between May 3, 2003 and July 3, 2009. So Arkady Renkov stopped editing two weeks before A.K.Nole started, and resumed the day after A.K.Nole stopped. Arkady Renkov made reference to A.K.Nole in the evidence presented, A.K.Nole clearly had problems with WMC, both users have simlary interests in editing (in terms of what they do with their edits, rather than the articles), and both have similar edit comment styles - with the slightly odd "onesource" appearing in each. - Bilby (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this help. I was just about to leave a note on Spartaz's page when I saw your message. There are so many people with grudges against WMC, it could be anyone. As Spartaz writes on the workshop page, this is not a new user. But I think what you say has the ring of truth, particularly because of the UK subject matter. The article on the MP was last edited by Verbal. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice to all users involved in Abd/WMC

This is a general notice to all users involved in the Abd/WMC arbitration case that further disruptive conduct within the case will not be tolerated and will result in blocks being issued by Clerks or Arbitrators as needed. More information is available at the announcement here; please be sure to read that post in full. Receipt of this message does not necessarily imply that you are at risk of a block or have been acting in a disruptive manner; it is a general notice to all that the Clerks and ArbCom are aware of issues in the case and will not be tolerating them any longer. If you have any questions, please post them to the linked section. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Borcherds

I see you've already noticed, but just a heads up that I've tweaked the Borcherds article somewhat and expanded on some bits of the biography. I hope you like the new version of the stuff about autism, which concludes that while Baron-Cohen did review him and a diagnosis of AS has been suggested, Baron-Cohen himself believes that Borcherds does not merit the diagnosis. Ironholds (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Handel-Roubiliac.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Handel-Roubiliac.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Polly (Parrot) 19:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup 1 August

FYI, the fourth Cambridge meetup will occur on the afternoon of Saturday 1 August. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WMC Abd case

You may want to look at my evidence section. I've updated it quite a bit and responed to both Abd and WMC on their talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Further tweaked the date time stamp list and posted a stmt on my talk page and on the case PD talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)