User talk:MathStatWoman

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MathStatWoman for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: The claim that MathStatWoman is a sock puppeteer was made by a number of other users. See the history of this talk page for more information. Chris53516 13:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, see my notes here. - David Oberst 05:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppet template was removed due to lack of evidence. Geo. 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Added sock template back again - there is ample evidence, including 2 CheckUser admins (see here). - David Oberst 01:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

AMA request

Request for arbitration and help

I thought that Wikipedia would be fun and I would be doing a good deed. However:

(a) I have been accused of "sockpuppetry". This is totally unjust. I am not the same as any ot the Wikipedia-editors to whom I have been linked. I seek an arbiter who will listen to reason and logic. Contributors named Bioinformaticist, MxM Peace (i think), Philly Student...they are not I, at all --I do not know who they are, I vow as if in court! (b) Why are articles (bios of living people) on Marion Cohen, Roberta Wenocur, Elaine Zanutto, Linda Zhao, and other female mathematicians being held to standards different from male mathematicians like Herbert Wilf, Dennis DeTurck, &c .? (c) What is the problem with the corp, Daniel H. Wagner Associates? (d) All right, maybe articles need improvement, but deletion? and some with prompt deletion? (e) Wikipedia should be fun, not so contentious. Please help. I want to be nice, but it is difficult when being unjustly accused and bulliied. I hope you are understanding, and believe me. I am not lying. This is the truth, and I am not enjoying my experience on Wikipedia.

Hello, Steve Caruso here from the AMA again. Thank you for not being discouraged and taking the time to fill out your request properly! :-) At this very moment, I am personally looking for an Advocate who would be able to most appropriately handle your case. Within the next day or two you should be hearing from them, but in the meantime, please be sure to read over our FAQ and our Guide to Advocacy to get a better understanding of what to expect. :-) If at any time you have any questions, please feel free to leave them on my talk page. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm Computerjoe, and I shall be your advocate. My main role will be advisory. I require you to comply to WP:CIVIL throughout this dispute. I will review this case in a more detail a bit later. Computerjoe's talk 18:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Linda Zhao has never existed on the Wikipedia: is this a typo on your part? Also, many of the articles were nominated for deletion due to notability issues, notability cannot be 'fixed'. I'd personally let the AfDs run through, because I doubt they'll be deleted. Also, by stating on the AfDs 'We female mathematicians are underpaid, unsung, and mistreated; our research is stolen by men.. Now a bio of one of us is to be deleted? Not fair!' you are stating you're sounding a bit WP:POINT and WP:NPOVey. The Wikipedia does not have a POV, and by simply being a woman in a certain field: you are not notable (apologies if that sounds uncivil and a little sexist). WP:BIO applies both to men and women. Computerjoe's talk 18:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi MathStatWoman! Welcome to Wikipedia.

I noted your edits at shatter and shattering. I'm afraid that's not how you move articles. You're probably too new to have the "move" button working, but it's the way these things are supposed to be done. I'll try and get it cleaned up. Don't feel bad about it; there's a lot to learn at first. I'll put the boilerplate notice below; it has some links that'll explain things. --Trovatore 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MathStatWoman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Trovatore 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

More welcome

Welcome from me too! And two tips: one is that it is good to use an edit summary, and two is that one can use four tildas to sign one's posts on the talk page. Hope you like i t here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

response

I've replied on my own talk page, User talk:Trovatore. P.S. please put new comments at the bottom of talk pages. --Trovatore 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Page move

I moved the page shatter to shattering. In the future, please don't move with cut and paste, in that way the history of the article gets lost. You are new, so probably you can't yet move pages the correct way (using the move tab at the top of the screen which you probably don't see). So, if you want to move pages from now on, you can ask me or some other people who can do that. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: your question

I replied on my talk page. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Also welcome!

Hi, good to have "real mathematicians" here. one comment, and an invitation: when posting on the talk page, the WP convention is to post at the bottom (or use the (+) tab on the web page, which will post at the bottom.) The inviation: general math discussions happen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, and you are invited to join in. linas 21:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I replied at length on my talk page. linas 18:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi MathStatWoman. Just a small remark, it is good to use an edit summary when you contribute. It helps ohters understand what you changed. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Shattering and watchlists

Hi,

I'm referring you to a comment I've written on your article on shattering, in case you haven't seen it.

If you haven't already, be sure to add important articles to your watchlist and check it once in a while. This way you can know about any changes that are going on.

--Meni Rosenfeld 15:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Apple Computer

I'm not sure if your recent edit was tongue-in-cheek or not - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt ;-) However, please read up on WP:NPOV so you know what is expected. If your edit was meant seriously, then unfortunately the 'facts' were incorrect. FWIW, I'm a Mac fan going back to 1985 and a Mac developer by profession, so I know what I'm talking about. The Mac does not have any significant technical superiority - its perceived superiority comes from a raft of intangibles. Graham 11:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if you're a developer too you must have attended some Apple dev seminars. Don't tell me you've never heard an Apple person refer to "the crazies" - they do it all the time! Googling also shows it's a common enough term in this context. The so-called 'facts' that you mentioned don't stack up. Mac pixels are not any smaller than any other PC - they all use screens from the same manufacturers, running at 96-100dpi. Macs crash very infrequently, true, but no less often than a modern PC that's well-configured. In other areas, Macs are slower than similar PCs, though they'll probably catch up this year. Mac fans do themselves no favours by trying to claim silly superiorities where there are none - those in the know simply laugh at them. Personally I feels Macs are superior for other reasons, mainly in the software design and some of the software tools, and perhaps in its 'humanism'. But these should never be confused with technical issues.

More: what do you consider to be "opinion" that you keep removing from the text? It is couched in very neutral terms, and is based on my own long experience as a developer. There is no harm in suggesting reasons for something, you can find similar sentiments all over the web. Citing references is difficult since there is no definitive referebnce - but it is such a commonly repeated view that none is needed. And by the way, not wishing to pull rank or anything, but I have been here a hell of a lot longer than you, and I rarely write stuff that violated WP policy - I suggest you get used to the flavour of things before getting into fights. Graham 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

== AppleSauce ==

Let us both not add opinion that cannot be verified through published sources. That is the Wikipedia way. Thanks. Keep it real, please. Also, you can use tildas to sign your complete user name. MathStatWoman 11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for lecturing me on how to use Wikipedia. Please check my edit history before you embarrass yourself any further. I know how to sign my name. I also know that it's very bad form to add comments to a user page, and not their talk page (I have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting your comment from there to here). I also know that the text you're insisting on removing is fine, so please, drop this now and learn a bit before you put your foot in anything else. Graham 11:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Apple Computer article

Hi. I've noticed you are in the midst of an edit war. Since you are new, I thought I would point out to be careful of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Including your anon edit, you are at three reverts within a short period; while this is allowed under the rule (you have to go over three to violate the letter of the rule), I suggest following the spirit of the rule and discussing your edits with Graham on the talk page of the article. --C S (Talk) 12:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Exaggerating, I think

Graham was personally uncivil to me even before multiple revisions, and continued to rant at me and about me to others, calling me names, as a middle-schooler might do, in an impolite, immature manner

At no point have I called you names, been uncivil, or ranted at you, or about you. Please show me where I have done so if you genuinely feel I have. I am an experienced editor here, I merely wish to point out that your advice about e.g. signing my name (when I had done so entirely correctly) was embarrassing you, as indeed it was. I don't however suffer fools gladly, so if I seem a little curt at times, well, you'll find I'm like that with anybody who can't be bothered to take the time to learn the ropes before committing themselves to a number of silly errors. Nothing personal.

All I want is a neutral point of view in the article and civil treatment on Wikipedia

Reporting a POV is not POV. Please read, absorb and understand WP:NPOV. As in life, respect here is usually earned. Graham 13:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Plea for reconciliation

[This entire text is also being posted to GrahamUK's talk page]

Looking through the history of the dispute, it seems that Graham lost his cool after MathStatWoman's comment put on his user page (instead of his talk page). Up until then, it seems a reasonable (although sharp) discussion of editing issues was taking place. I urge MathStatWoman to try and understand why in light of the content dispute that was occurring, this comment upset him. I also urge Graham to realize his response was harsher than necessary and led to escalation. I think once apologies are made on both sides, everyone can get to discussing the issues that first arose and have largely been overshadowed by this back-and-forth. --C S (Talk) 20:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

MathStatWoman, please see also discussion at GRAHAMUK's talk page. --Meni Rosenfeld 13:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a lengthy reply to your message at user talk:Chan-Ho Suh. For my part, I really would rather put all this behind us, so please read what I have to say and have a think about it before replying, should you feel the need to. Usually, it's a good idea to not post while feeling are running high, though in this case I genuinely hope it won't have that effect. Sincerely, Graham 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

On 11-Jan, you created a "soft" redirect from Empirical process to Empirical Process. You should do a real redirect in cases like this. The instructions for how are at Wikipedia:Redirect. I've fixed this one, but if you need help in the future, let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 22:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect re: Empirical Process. I just did not know what to do. What did you do? It was elegant. Thanks again. MathStatWoman 10:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The instructions are at Wikipedia:Redirect per my note. There is also a shortcut for entering the correct syntax in the "special chracters" section of the edit page (below the save, preview, and show changes buttons). -- JLaTondre 14:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

But I don't think this particular redirect is appropriate. See my question regarding this issue and (hopefully) pending answer. --Meni Rosenfeld 14:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved Empirical Process to Empirical process (small "p"). That is the convention on Wikipedia, that one use upper case only at the beginning of a title or for proper names. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Shattering and stuff

Hi, please see my replies at my talk page and at Talk:Shattering. --Meni Rosenfeld 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

adding categories

To place an article in the category mathematics place the text [[:Category:Mathematics]] at the bottom of the text. The mathematics category is a bit too broad so you should probably change it to probability theory, statistics or stochatic processes (I'm not sure which one). Cheers, —Ruud 00:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Caught red-handed

Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser - CheckUser confirms that user:DeveloperFrom1983 (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of user:MathStatWoman (talk • contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In the light of this (which I already knew - I just needed proof), I both withdraw all my remarks made to you in good faith as user:DeveloperFrom1983, and demand an apology for all the insulting remarks you have made about me to other editors, who have all been informed of your gross behaviour. Since everything you have written pretending to be a "respected professor of computer science" is shown to be a lie (or perhaps it's true and you're not a mathematician?) it looks as if your credibility is in tatters. You were warned as soon as you created the alias "DeveloperFrom1983" that that was not a good course of action; surely you realise that a simple check is all that is required to confirm this? Persisting with that alias instead of entering into proper process was bad form, but using it to attempt to gain favour with other editors while at the same time damaging my own reputation is a gross breach of etiquette as well as decency. I'm not sure what the next step is, partly that's up to you - but at the very least you owe me an apology, as well as one to all those editors to whom you have lied. For what it's worth, you weren't even very clever about your deception, I knew DeveloperFrom1983 was you as soon as "he" popped up seconds after you disappeared, edited the same article and used exactly the same phrases. In addition, you got yourself muddled up when complaining about me since in fact some of the complaints you made under that alias referred to remarks I made to you under this one. That's the trouble with lying - keeping track of which bits you told to whom and when... really, it's far simpler just to be honest and defend your edits with integrity, which is what I advised you to do in the first place, and what all of the rest of us do. Graham 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you know what's really sad? Reading your user page here, we actually have a great deal in common (assuming that any of it's true). Such a shame. Graham 02:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding the category to Empirical process. How does one add a category to an article; I'd like to know how. Thanks again. MathStatWoman 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This question was addressed to R.Koot, but I took the liberty to answer it. To add a category, you can type [[Category:Probability theory]] or something similar at the bottom of the article.

Note: I will now go add a lot of links at empirical process to relevant topics, and you are encouraged to do the same in future articles. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I have reviewed the evidence in your case and find your statements unconvincing. You and your sockpuppets (DeveloperFrom1983, Amy Internet Avoider, and PreHistorian) all edit with the same style, keep the same (late) hours, and edit from the same IP addresses -- which appear to be residential DSL service. My deeper investigation confirms my original conclusion, rather than weakens it, and I am strongly tempted to block you for disrupting Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I have posted a reply to your message on my talk page. By the way, if you haven't discovered it already, it's worthwhile going to your user preferences and checking 'Add pages you edit to your watchlist' under the 'Editing' tab. This makes it much easier to track changes to things you're interested in. Graham 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi MathStatWoman. And I have a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries more often when you contribute. An edit summary helps others understand what you changed when checking the watchlist or the recent changes, and often times complements studying the diff. Think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. I hope you don't mind. :) Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome from me too

Hi! I just wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia. I'm an administrator here also with a math degree (just a BS) and it's great to get more experts and especially professional researchers on board in this area. I noticed you're still getting used to a few things commented on above, but please don't feel discouraged - everybody new on Wikipedia does some stuff wrong, but you've added lots of excellent content, and you can't hurt anything, everything can be undone. Happy editing, and please drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions at all. Deco 05:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sets of sets

Hi, you may want to check this out. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

Hi there, it wasn't actually me who made that comment, it was User:71.132.233.136 who doesn't have any other contributions. Anyway for what it's worth I don't really see how it's a paradox either (although I'm no expert). Oh and keep up the great work! :-) the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 12:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the greeting. Yes, I need help! I am struggling with the markup language, esp for mathematics; I get un-pretty results. It doesn't seem to be exactly html, LaTeX, or TeX; my friend DK, whom I asked for help, who invented TeX, is no longer working on these matters since he is updating his comp programming books now, but you seem to be an expert on pretty fonts and graphics. Also, I could use help on my user page...it is not pretty, just plain and I would like to make it better. Then, too, I don't know how to add pretty pictures (photos, drawings, etc.) on pages. And a lot more... thanks again! MathStatWoman 15:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

(Posting to both user pages to make sure you receive this.)

Hey! I understand your frustration with the markup. The Mediawiki engine supports a limited subset of LaTeX, which you surround with math tags (<math> and </math>). You can read all about it at Help:Formula. As for the rest of the markup, it's pretty simple, and you can read a friendly but comprehensive introduction at How_to_edit_a_page#Wiki_markup.

The general process for adding images is:

• Create a GIF, PNG, JPG, or SVG image file on your local machine. I assume you already have software you use to create diagrams, but if not there are many options like the free Inkscape, Dia, and Graphviz. If you have an .eps, .ps, or .pdf file, you can convert it to SVG using a tool like pstoedit. Don't convert these type of diagram files to GIF/PNG/JPG, as this loses information and makes them more difficult to edit.
• Click "Upload file" in the toolbox along the left side. Make sure you choose a complete, descriptive filename. You will need to choose a free license to release your images under (assuming you produced them) - I suggest "PD (self made)", which releases all rights and is the least restrictive license. Don't upload images produced by others unless they have agreed to release them under a free license.
• Use the image markup described at How_to_edit_a_page#Images and Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax to embed the image in a page. When embedding an SVG, you have to specify a width in pixels, as in [[Image:Whatever.svg|200px]].

I hope this helps - please ask any other questions you have, and good luck. Deco 19:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

TeX usage

dear mathstatwoman, see my changes on empirical processes regarding TeX usage. Please diff to learn about e.g. \operatorname and how to do curly braces properly. (Use the "compare revisions" button on the "history" tab.) Dmharvey 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a direct link to the diff for you, MathStatWoman. Deco 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Elephants

You need to add this information under the "Threat of extinction" header (to organize the article properly), and use <ref> tags with links to reference it. Sorry, heading off to work right now. Please use {{helpme}} if you need more help with Wiki markup. Ashibaka tock 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You have repeatedly posted material taken mostly verbatim from articles found on the web. This runs counter to Wikipedia's copyright policy: you can summarize and paraphrase, but verbatim copying is not an option. What's even more worrying is that you were reverted by several people and still keep doing the same thing. I've given you a brief time out to catch up on your messages before you go even further down this misguided path. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're placing too much importance on what appears to be a minor article. A statement by one person from an economic development organization does not merit a whole paragraph in Wikipedia's article on Elephants. It also doesn't prove that "Colbert was right" - the elephant population may have risen over the course of a decade, in the specific region which Ramsamy was discussing, but it did not triple in six months as Colbert was joking about. MarkSweep is correct, too - please do not copy articles into Wikipedia verbatim. We need to respect the author's copyrights. Rhobite 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:EZpic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EZpic.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see the comment posted here. Chris53516 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RMDudley.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RMDudley.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Brenda and Daniel Dvorkin

I've listed these articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Dvorkin, because they both appear to be nonnotable. Please review that essay before creating more articles about people you know. Thanks, NawlinWiki 04:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And -- please do not remove AFD notices from articles, as you did in Brenda Dvorkin. It is considered vandalism, and can get you blocked. If you have an argument to make as to why these people are notable enough to have articles in a general-reference encyclopedia, please make it in the AFD discussion. NawlinWiki 04:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel H. Wagner Associates

I've just finished my lunch break at work and won't be able to look into this at the moment. I'll check it out in a few hours. --Wafulz 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of "vanity" on Wikipedia

Part of this conversation was moved from: User talk:Gazpacho

You can create cited articles about any notable mathematician you like, but creating articles about yourself and your friends is very much frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. Gazpacho 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Literally housands of notable mathematicians and statisticians on Earth are my friends and colleagues! So if I do not write about any friend, thousands of mathematicians, men, and the few women, will be excluded. So delete Don Knuth's article? He is my friend. Delete Paul Erdos's article? He was my dear friend. Delete Mark Pinsky's bio? Delete R. M Dudley's article -- my friends, too...so I guess, according to your idea, I write nothing! Do you have a personality disorder? MathStatWoman 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read those guidelines? Gazpacho 18:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

yes i have read those pages, thank you very much. Are you a mysogynist ?-- see mysogyny . I have not written about myself. I am waiting for someone to do so; but it is a friend and colleague with whom I worked who plans to do this, but she's a female mathematician too, so I guess she should not try, either. 71.242.164.228 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Are you a misogynist?" You know, with that attitude I don't think you need to be here. You have created an article about yourself. You have created articles about two friends who are not mathematicians, notable or otherwise. It makes no sense to bring Knuth into the question of whether these articles should be kept. If you cannot reconcile yourself to the idea that Wikipedia isn't for self-promotion and social networking, bon voyage. Gazpacho 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to name-call. Assume Good Faith. Gazpacho probably believes that Wikipedia will be less biased if it is written by people who do not have personal affiliations with the material at hand. Unfortunately, it seems like you are familiar with some of these people, and your point of view may be biased. You may have violated a Wikipedia policy. Regardless, your behavior is not very civil. (See Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.) Please follow Wikipedia's policy on user conduct. I hope this conflict can be resolved without removing anyone from Wikipedia. Chris53516 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Marion Cohen Want to look at this article too? Maybe you want to delete her bio, too? She is a woman, you know, so why not delete a record of her achievements? MathStatWoman 18:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, it's not about women. It's about what makes an article worthy to be in an encyclopedia. Your other articles, such as Steven Salant and Mark Pinsky are also not encyclopedic. They don't even have good content. Wikipedia is not a reference list! Chris53516 19:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, these articles might need improvement. So how about getting together to improve them instead of deleting them? These are people of note, and their bios should not be deleted, but improved. So help me to do so, and also please -- get others to clean them up too. Deletion is adverserial in its very nature; instead, why don't we work together to improve all the bios? Sound all right to you? MathStatWoman 19:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to moderate this conflict. I don't know anything about these people. If you want, look up Wikipedia's policy about peer review and add those templates to the pages. Of greater concern, however, is your behavior. It is unbecoming of any kind of person to name call and make personal attacks. You are not helping your case by assuming that anyone is a woman-hater. Would you say such a thing to his face? If I were you, I would read up on Wikipedia policy, especially about what Wikipedia is, and learn more about Wikipedia markup, etc. so that you can write better articles. I would avoid writing about "notable people" or "notable organizations," because you might think they are notable, but they may not be. For example, I'm not notable to anyone but me. I am very notable as a non-woman-hater, as I am sure Gazpacho is too. :) Lastly, try to write in a neutral point of view. The article on Daniel Wagner Associates is very biased, especially with the header on "Award Winning." Anyway, try to write better articles, then they won't be questioned. Chris53516 19:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I popped in to leave ya a message about this, and I see it's already been discussed. Please don't write articles about yourself or people you know- the resulting articles are rarely neutral or verfiable. If you really feel that an individual is of enough significance to warrant an enecylopedic biography, please remember to use information that's published in a reliable source. Friday (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Log in?

You had might as well log in and edit the pages with your user ID. Don't try to con us with your IP address. Chris53516 19:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not the only person who uses this computer. I have roommates, and we share. MathStatWoman 23:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

General personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

As can be seen above, this user has made multiple personal attacks on various Wikipedians. Either the user will refrain from doing so in the future, or we will request that this user is banned. Chris53516 20:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel H. Wagner Associates 2

I try to be nice, really, but life has been tough as a female mathstatwoman and on my female colleagues.

We have had unbelievable, unfair experiences.

About Daniel H. Wagner Associates: If you want to delete it, do it if you want. I really don't care; I have no investment in them nor was ever employed by them, now or then. But if you google Daniel H. Wagner, Associates in that way, you will find that their history and what they do/have done is impressive.

They really invented the science of search, found H-bombs, found pieces of space shuttles that crashed, located oil, etc.

Maybe someone else can write about them in a more neutral way.

What I do care about is: to give female scientists, mathematicians, and statisticians their due. I have not written about myself. I'll leave that for someone else, or no one else. But I know so many unsung, unappreciated, mistreated women in those fields, who are very accomplished. Let's not delete the articles, ok? Perhaps we can just write them well. Maybe someone else who cares could help. MathStatWoman 23:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't know anything about them, and the article as it stands is unencyclopedic. I suggest you put a {{peer-review}} stub at the top of the page or on the talk page. On another topic, I really think that your concerns about female scientists is unfounded. Wikipedia is open to these people. As I noted above, your articles are generally unencyclopedic because of their content, not because of the topic. A person or entity you think is important may not really be in the real world. If someone has made ground-breaking discoveries, then a biography doesn't belong here. I don't think any Wikipedians of any esteem are trying to throw out articles about females. Quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing your argument because it is unfounded in this case. You wrote articles about men that aren't very good either. Chris53516 13:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What 'unbelievable, unfair experiences' have you had? That sounds almost unbelievable in itself. Chris53516 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you keep saying that this person is doing wrong by using personal attacks, but you've been antagonizing her for quite some time - and you are not the only one. I wandered upon this talk page as a neutral observer, and I must say, it seems that YOU and a few others are the bullies here, not mathstatswoman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Diplomat (talk • contribs)

I have said nothing about her, just that she's violated a policy by attacking other people on other pages. As a new contributor, perhaps you should look at these policies. For example, the policy on signing your comments. Chris53516 01:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

elaine zanutto

May I re-instate the article about her? She is very accomplished and has made some remarkable discoveries. I can add more of her achievements. Someone deleted her article. MathStatWoman 23:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please read about Wikipedia markup? You aren't helping anyone by writing pages with bad markup, including writing on my user page and writing notes that aren't about me in my talk page. All of your recent comments are about things you are doing, not me. So write them here. Also, don't break up conversations. If I leave a note for you here, write your response here. Don't move it to my page. If the article about Elaine Zanutto was deleted, why are you asking me about it? Wikipedia has decided to delete it. I didn't delete it. It's irrelevant to me. Ask the person who deleted it. In my opinion, no you shouldn't, because it was already deleted once. Chris53516 13:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people). You will find that many of your articles do not fit this guideline. Given how you haven't read the other policies because of your continued behavior, I don't have any hope that you'll actually read this anyway. Chris53516 13:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe

Hi Anonymous, (now MathStatWoman) Many thanks for the message on my user page. You said: "Who is this Zoe and why is he/she deleting perfectly good articles?" Zoe is an administrator and one of thousands of users of this site. I assume that you are talking about my article: SGGS on Meat. It is not just Zoe, but several users who have spoken against this article and want it deleted – Please read what various users have said about this article and what they feel about deleting it and add your own views at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SGGS on Meat. I hope this answers your question – If not please post on my user page again. Many thanks and happy surfing --Hari Singh 23:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant wiping out bio of female mathematicians and statisticians, e.g. Elaine Zanutto (already gone) Roberta Wenocur (threatened for deletion) and just about anything regarding women in math & science. MathStatWoman 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

and now also SGGS on Meat!! I have no idea about his/her motivation. I suggest that you ask: User:Blnguyen he may know and be able to help – He an administrator who so far appears to have a cool head!
Anyway, I have looked at the article: Roberta Wenocur and have offered my support to keep the article - I agree with you that Zoe appears to be biased and very subjective in his/her judgement -apart from being snappy and egocentric. I will ask my friends to also review this article!! Many thanks --Hari Singh 03:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Wikipedia is not fun, but contentious. See the latest stuff to delete bio of Roberta Wenocur. They wiped out bio on Elaine Zanutto. Maybe I will stop contributing. Is this a power trip for some people? I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia as a "good deed", but it seems to be "Truthiness" -- Truth by Democracy, with an in-crowd of power-hungry people with a lot of time on their hands. You were fair, but many are not. I suspect gender bias, also, among many."
I am sure it is a power trip for some people who otherwise have nothing to do. Further, with the general world situation regarding terrorism and lawlessness - I believe that some of this will filter thro to sites like this where malpractices will become the order of the day. Some of these people will with stealth and covert means stifle the rights of others and maintain and promote their crooked ideologies. But please do not "give-up" – Just have a break – get your energy levels up and tackle them again and again until they see sense and we get to the ultimate destiny!! Keep positive – You may lose a battle but we will win the war!!! Please look at my articles and see if you can support me and I will try and do the same and ask my colleagues to review your articles as well and offer their support if possible. --Hari Singh 15:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jiminy Christmas! This isn't some vast conspiracy or any covert action- this is just editors doing what editors do. People delete hundreds of pages each day. You make it sounds like some gastapo is going around murdering innocent people, when all that's really happening is people are editing an encyclopedia. And yes, deleting pages is part of that editing process. You may also want to keep in mind that "bloc voting" is frowned upon- ideally editors would judge each article on it's own merits, not vote "keep" because they're on friendly terms with the author. For the first time I can recall, an article I started is now up for deletion, but you know what? Rather than attacking the motives of the people who want to delete it, I'm just giving my own personal opinion on why I think it should stay. Assuming some evil motivation behind deletion is a violation of Occam's razor - surely anyone with a background in the sciences can see this. Friday (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:N

There isn't any gender bias or such really. The issue is simply that the test for inclusion of academics of all sorts is high. A rough summary of what makes an academic notable is given at WP:PROF. The bottom line is that the majority of professors, regardless of gender, do not meet those criteria. Now, I think the criteria should be looser but that is an issue of policy, not gender bias. JoshuaZ 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if in articles you create about academics (or defend their deletion) you explicitly point to what if any in WP:PROF they satisfy this will make deletion much less likely. JoshuaZ 14:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not gender bias

There may be folks who'd disagree, but I haven't seen anything that looks to me like gender bias here. Yes, plenty of editors have identified (and tried to correct) some biases, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The big issue here is this: we get people posting CVs on here all the time. We get silly kids writing that they and their friends are the coolest kids ever. We get people promoting their businesses. A great deal of this stuff is deleted on sight. Some of it goes to Afd instead. All that said, it's true that some people are too quick to delete. It's also true that some people are needlessly rude when deleting things. I'm sorry for this. But, shouting "you all hate women!" and being rude back will not help your cause here. See WP:BIO for some standards for biographies. The problem with academics is, of course they're highly published- this is what happens when an academic does her job. The guy who does his job at the car wash has washed lots of cars, too. In the end, simply having a job (even if you're good at it) is nowhere near enough to warrant an encyclopedic biography. Friday (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. People with a specific agenda to promote are treated with extreme suspicion here- which is understandable, given that we're trying to write neutral articles here. The agenda of "women in math and science need more recognition" is all well and good, but Wikipedia cannot be the place to advance such an agenda. We don't make people notable here- we only describe what other sources have said about significant people. Saying we should counter real-world bias by giving undue weight in our articles will be an extremely unpopular suggestion to almost all editors here. Friday (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Friday. I'd like to that Monday through Thursday too, especially Saturday and Sunday. Just kidding. :) I think just about anyone would agree that women are cool and that women in science, especially math, are cool too. I don't think anyone wants to bring them down in any way. This all comes back to two policies on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Chris53516 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither of which you yourself have followed. You're a bully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Diplomat (talk • contribs)

Suggestion

If you feel strongly about the need to give more prominence to females in mathematics a way to help which might be more productive would be to expand some existing articles such Julia Robinson and Constance Reid both of whom have woefully short articles at present. JoshuaZ 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

standard Wikipedia conventions (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style)

Please see my recent edits to Marion Cohen and Daniel H. Wagner, Associates. You're neglecting some standard Wikipedia conventions. In one case, your link to Kalman Filter was a red link because of the incorrectly capitalized f (I've now created the appropriate redirect page and bypassed it in this case). Michael Hardy 17:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

(Also see my edits to Brenda Dvorkin.) Michael Hardy 17:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

notation

Hello. At empirical process, you wrote:

$F_{n}$ defined by

$F_{n}(x)={1 \over n}card(X_{j}\leq x,j=1,2,...n).$

You must have meant:

$F$ and $F_{n}$ is defined by

$F_{n}(x)={1 \over n}\operatorname {card} \{\,j\in \{\,1,\dots ,n\,\}:X_{j}\leq x\,\}.$

Michael Hardy 17:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion policy

You were instrumental in deleting bio of Marion Cohen, an accomplished mathematician and author, and of Elaine Zanutto, yet what's with the one-line article on Dennis DeTurck? Why not wipe that? The articles on Herbert Wilf, John Allen Paulos, Doron Zeilberger, it goes on and on with males...why do you not delete them too? That is not what I would want. Why not keep and improve all the articles, men and women alike. Their achievements are comparable. MathStatWoman 18:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No I was not. I had nothing to do with that deletion. Michael Hardy 18:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what makes you think I had anything at all to do with the deletion of an article on Elaine Zanutto. I've never seen it. Nor the one on Dennis DeTurck.

I edited the article on Marion Cohen shortly before someone deleted it. If anything, my edits could only have helped save it. Michael Hardy 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Marion Cohen article was a copyright violation. It was a direct cut-and-paste from a website. See WP:C. btw, the Dennis DeTurck article has now been deleted. It was an essentially empty article with no sources supporting verifiability WP:VER or notability. Brian 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Would appreciate your opinion

Hi MathStatWoman. As a statistician, I would appreciate your opinions on a couple of pages I have been worried about: Homogeneity (statistics) and Canonical analysis. I have a suspicion that both pages are 'pseudo-maths', and both certainly need cleanup. I am a mathematician, but not a statistician (although I have had to teach statistics at various times), and would value your professional opinions. Best wishes, Madmath789 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi, I believe you have a lot to offer Wikipedia, but you seem to be having a rough start. Your edit to Misogyny here could be considered vandalism. Many of your comments on talk pages are in violation of WP:Civil. Several of the articles you authored were copyright violations and have either already been deleted or are being reviewed for deletion as possible copyright violations. Rather than get upset and make edits that could lead you to being blocked, I suggest you review The five pillars and the simplified ruleset. If in doubt, ask for help, there are many editors here that prefer to collaborate and improve articles and many who will be quite willing to help you get the content you'd like to see on Wikipedia edited in a manner that will ensure it will survive (as long as it passes the policies and guidelines for notability and verifiability). If you'd like my help, just put a note on my talk page. Good luck, I'd hate to see you get overly frustrated and leave, I'd much rather see you as a positive contributor to Wikipedia. Brian 19:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Roberta Wenocur

Ms. Wenocur doesn't seem to meet our guidelines at WP:BIO. If you disagree with my interpreation, or if you have more information to help to make the article show how she does meet the guideline, please discuss it on the Articles for Deletion page linked from the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should I care what she likes to be called? Why would I want to be called "Mr" anything? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia

You know, you don't have to leave. If you would sit down and learn something about Wikipedia, as noted by many people above, you would be a welcome contributer. But the way you are editing right now is causing problems. If you really care about representing women in mathematics, you would do so curteously and to the best of your abilities, not by name-calling and poor editing. I for one would help you if you took time to learn about Wikipedia markup, proper behavior, and the meaning of a good article. Chris53516 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind comment on my Talk page. I am very wary about bios of living people in general on WP because they need a lot of verification, a lot of protection against vandalism, and care to avoid vanity. If someone wants to post a bio, they often have a very good reason for doing so, but I think it's important to have a high bar generally, and personally I'd set it higher than I could reach.

Editing on WP can be frustrating and there are certainly some unpleasant characters stalking these routes, but there are also some remarkably good and nice people; I hope you stay (PS I was a mathematician once)Gleng 21:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your article Elaine Louise Zanutto

Hi, the article Elaine Louise Zanutto was nominated for speedy deletion as a repost on Elaine Zanutto, but it doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. So I procedurally moved it to articles for deletion. I'm not very good at judging whether a certain academic is notable or not, so you might want to offer your opinion. ColourBurst 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know this article was not re-posted by you but can we have your support. My friend Ksingh20 deserves your support!! Many thanks. And no need to leave - They are just a bunch of little kids - Don't take it too seriously. Let's learn the system and use it fairly. We will get there but we need to learn the tricks of the trade. I know you have the IQ and its probably greater than a lot of these kids running the show - that is why they do not understand - but be patient!! We will get there in the end. I know you are busy but please just give us a few minutes each day!! MxM Peace 12:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for articles

Several of your articles have been marked for deletion- this isn't a particular statement about your, or the quality of your articles, or about the people/companies that they feature. I think you should become more familiar with our policies before you continue contributing. I know it can be frustrating to have your work erased- I've had it happen to me too. Please take some time to read through the following, which I believe apply to you the most:

• WP:BIO, which deals with articles on living people
• WP:PROF, which deals with professors or other academics
• WP:CORP, which deals with companies
• WP:V, which discusses verifiability
• WP:RS, which covers reliable sources and how to use them

I can see that you have a lot to contribute, and I'd rather not have a mind like yours go to waste. However, if my young career in mathematics has taught me anything, it's that everything is much easier when you understand the basics. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask, and I'll do my best to answer them. Happy editing. --Wafulz 01:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Advocacy Request

I'm sorry to inform you that the Advocacy request that you had posted over at the Association of Members' Advocates has been temporarily removed from the list because you did not follow the instructions that were outlined on our Requests Page. In order for us to help you, we need you to follow these instructions as closely as possible, as they create links and other structures that are essential for us to operate efficiently and handle your request in a proper fashion. I strongly implore you to re-submit your request by following the three steps that are outlined here, and once that is done I will personally see to getting you a suitable Advocate.

Thanks and apologies,

אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 16:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you need help with?

I noticed you're trying to ask for advocacy, yet you're already got tons of people commenting on your talk page who you've not responded to. Some of your recent edits even lead me to believe you haven't even read many of these comments. I think you'll find there are plenty of people willing to help out, but you have to help yourself also. Friday (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration and help

(a) I have been accused of "sockpuppetry". This is totally unjust. I am not the same as any ot the Wikipedia-editors to whom I have been linked. I seek an arbiter who will listen to reason and logic. Contributors named Bioinformaticist, M&M Peace (i think), Philly Student...they are not I, at all --I do not know who they are, I vow as if in court! (b) Why are articles (bios of living people) on Marion Cohen, Roberta Wenocur, Elaine Zanutto, Linda Zhao, and other female mathematicians being held to standards different from male mathematicians like Herbert Wilf, Dennis DeTurck, &c .? (c) What is the problem with the corp, Daniel H. Wagner Associates? (d) All right, maybe articles need improvement, but deletion? and some with prompt deletion? (e) Wikipedia should be fun, not so contentious.

Please help. I want to be nice, but it is difficult when being unjustly accused and bulliied.

I hope you are understanding, and believe me. I am not lying. This is the truth.

MathStatWoman 16:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have checked into this User:Ksingh20 seems different from you. Fred Bauder 18:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As you are well aware, Philly Student and WomanTreatedUnfairly are you while M&M Peace is a sock of Ksingh20. If you feel arbitration would be worthwhile, made a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Fred Bauder 18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA

Thanks for your request. Could elaborate on the problem? Geo. 19:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Oberst

No personal attacks, please. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't leave

The way to overcome a problem on the Wikipedia isn't to leave the Wikipedia. Computerjoe's talk 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

I don't believe it to be the case that you were disliked by many. I think that if you had taken a little more time to read the policies and guidelines and would have accepted some of the advice offered on your talk page that you would have become a very constructive editor. If you decide to come back, I think you'll find that you'll be welcome and that many (including me) will be glad to help you learn the ropes. Brian 18:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)btball

AfD Nomination: Marion Cohen

I've nominated the article Marion Cohen for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Marion Cohen satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Cohen. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Marion Cohen during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion.

I'm relisting this article on procedural grounds, as the original AfD was closed early. Espresso Addict 03:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Contact

I read your message and I understand what you are saying. Please give me a list of articles you wish to create and content for them. I will help you create them provided they do not violate wiki policies. Geo. 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Utz

Provided you put the draft on my talk page i will create it. Geo. 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dishonesty

You have not left Wikipedia. You are still contributing to it, so why are you trying to deceive us by telling us you have left? Chris53516 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes people decide to leave and later reconsider it. That's no reason to call this dishonesty or deception. Friday (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's really not an unusual occurence. And it's not deception when the person editing an article is identified; only if a person claimed to have left and then edited under some other name could the claim to have left actually deceive anyone. Michael Hardy 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This user has been known to use sock puppets. I have every right to suspect dishonesty. Chris53516 03:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your questions

1. Should I not sign in when reading other articles, so that I do not see alerts that I have messages?

   I don't see what that would achieve. Doesn't really matter, it's your personal choice.

2. If it is acceptable for me to sign in when reading other articles, is it all right for me to re-join Wikipedia, even after I thought I would stop editing, after having been encouraged to do so by other Wikipedians?

   Many users have stopped editing, but came back. You shouldn't have been encouraged to leave, and you shouldn't let them encourage you.

3. If it is indeed acceptable for me to decide to edit again, am I really "dishonest" and a "liar" as per User: Chris53516?

   The 'dishonest' is a borderline breach of WP:NPA, and liar is a blatant one. It is not acceptable.

4. Is it appropriate for Wikipedians such as User: Chris53516 and User: Chan-Ho Suh and others (anonymous) to vandalize my discussion/talk page by deleting favorable comments while adding their own verbiage including terms that, in my opinion, are insulting and, moreover, false?

   No. Comments should only be removed if they are incivil or personal attacks, or you archive them.

5. Why am I being accused of "sockpuppetry" when it is not true, and cannot be proven simply because it is not true?

   The only way to prove sockpuppetry is a WP:RFCU, and these do not come lightly.

6. Why is the accusation of "sockpuppetry" displayed on my User page? I really do not appreciate this, especially since it is a false accusation.

   I think if you contest it, you could remove it. I'm not quite sure what the reaction would be, or how people would respond, though.

7. What does "be nice" mean on Wikipedia, as User: Chris53516 recommends ? Does it include calling another Wikipedian "dishonest", someone who intends to "deceive", and a "liar" if that Wikipedian decides to return to Wikipedia and attempt to communicate with others via talk, or to edit an article?

   Being nice on the Wikipedia means: assuming good faith, being civil and being cool! Computerjoe's talk 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

8. Why had so many of my articles been deleted? So many of my edits reverted? Even when I supplied citations? (Some of the articles I started became quite lengthy, although they were intended to be concise, simply because of so many requests to establish importance of the subject, noteability, to provide more and more citations even after having supplied many, etc.)

   You may have supplied evidence to support notability, however, this evidence may not suffice. The fact an article is about a woman has nothing to do as to whether or not it's being deleted. I'd point you to WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:PROFTEST, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. All are worth a thorough read.

9. If you do indeed answer my questions, and if I should respond to your answering me, shall I anticipate being called "liar", "dishonest", "sockpuppet" that I "deceive", etc (by other Wikipedians, of course, not by you!) Again, thank you.

   No. You should not. The third one you may be called, but anyone who raises an eyebrow may be called that. People should not make personal attacks.

On a sidenote, I closed your request for advocacy due to the absence, however, I'm still willing to advise.

I would personally suggest you read as many Wikipedia policies as you can, to avoid future disputes. The key policies are all outlined at Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines covers more in more detail. Computerjoe's talk 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Answers to questions

Hi, it looks like I was asked the same questions as Computerjoe. My answers are here. Brian 04:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)btball

modified template

hi mathstatwoman

based on your comments i have created a brand new template and added it to your user page. i don't know enough to say if you are a "sockpuppeteer", but it sounds like this is unproven in your case.

i've also always found the term uncivil, though not as uncivil as calling others "meatpuppets".

Justforasecond 04:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Saga

Please leave article text on my talk page. I am going to see about removing the sockpuppet warning. Geo. 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Info-cent

A friend has started a new encyclopedia at [1] He has assured me that any articles you write will not be deleted. Geo. 00:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies here is the new link [2] Geo. 23:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Happy holidays !

You may want to consider endorsing this petition: User_talk:Friday#Petition_to_recall_User:Friday_from_the_position_of_admin. StuRat 13:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a petition to recall Friday from adminship, but that petition has now ended, and failed to get enough signatures. If Friday continues to engage in such behavior, however, it is likely that such a petition will come up again. If you'd like, I can notify you if such a petition comes up, and you can decide if you want to endorse it or not. Meanwhile, can you provide any links to show where he has treated you in a shabby fashion ? I'd be interested in seeing those. StuRat 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as State of being real) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Betaeleven 13:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Réalité) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Betaeleven 13:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Realness) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Betaeleven 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Being Real) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Betaeleven 13:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Etat de réalité) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Betaeleven 13:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of these pages contains "Reality has become a commodity."

This is considered nonsense.

I did not designate you as a sockpuppet. Check your history. Betaeleven 13:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to create inappropriate pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Onorem 14:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Reality of realities) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Betaeleven 14:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. --Delirium 14:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to review those articles myself and decide if they are nonsense, but they have already been deleted. Where can I find the text ? StuRat 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Al Einstein

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Al Einstein) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Alcemáe ^{T • C} 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the page and you re-created it. Please stop your disruptive edits or you will once again be blocked from editing. Pascal.Tesson 02:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

... and please stop inserting unsourced accusations in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pascal.Tesson 02:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your creation of inappropriate pages. Please read up on our vandalism policy, Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and what Wikipedia is. You are welcome to edit Wikipedia when the block expires, but please only make pages and edits that improve Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 02:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian (U.S. Census) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Caucasian (U.S. Census). Since you had some involvement with the Caucasian (U.S. Census) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Mark Pinsky for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Pinsky is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Pinsky until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)