User talk:Mathsci/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mathsci. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

MoritzB

Hello. I don't have the time or patience to deal with this right now. I suggest you initiate a request for comments on this editor. There have already been a number of threads about his behaviour on WP:ANI (which you can probably recover from looking at the history of MoritzB's talk page). If you do decide to go to RfC, I strongly suggest taking the time to research his history carefully and to contact other users who have tried to deal with him. This is the only way to guarantee that all issues regarding his behaviour are addressed. I don't have much hope that this will be resolved by anything other than a simple ban but we need to make sure we can't find a better avenue. Pascal.Tesson 17:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd find the need to be so laughably rude. In any case, I suggest you turn to somebody else to help you out. Pascal.Tesson 14:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

Are we somehow misunderstanding each other? I think you've asserted more than once that the claims are "hardly believable". I don't understand why you insist on that, or what it has to do with whether or not he should be blocked, a block which you'll note, I support, as a community ban. How is it also necessary to call him a liar? Or - am I misunderstanding your use of the word "believable" to not refer to the incident precipitating the photo? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, to me what he wrote looks like bluster and completely unverifiable. This is just one example of behaviour, the inclusion of statements designed to shock, which a number of people seem to be denying. You seem to be implying that this behaviour is reasonable; there we must disagree. To me he is being deliberately provocative. Most of User:Miltopia's edits seem to be similarly cheeky and designed to disrupt the functioning of WP, just as Durova has said. I would have to agree that it is irritating behaviour which would usually just lead to a warning. I did also find one normal BLP article on a music teacher, Miriam Zach, that he created all on his own. Perhaps somebody should award him a barnstar for that. A lovable rogue? --Mathsci 22:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's unverifiable, that's no reason to say he's "probably lying" - that's also totally unverifiable, ad hominem, contemptuous-sounding, and unnecessary. I've been following Miltopia's work here rather closely, so you don't need to tell me all the mistakes he's made. What I've seen is that he learns from them, while maintaining a headstrong and sometimes defiant temper.

Your dry witticism duly noted, I don't claim that we're losing one a great FA writer or something. He's a kid who wanted to help out, but couldn't resist the occasional juvenile giggle. He's someone we decided we'd rather just get rid of than work with him. Why add insult to injury? Does it just feel right, to add a stick to the fire? Why add, "probably lying"? Were you really mad at that horse, when it was alive? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that there is no carefully prepared set of diffs in this case. That is not the fault of any administrator. I am not trying to fan any flames here - there are none to fan. Unfortunately the only constructive but tedious thing that could possibly be done at present is to prepare such a detailed set of diffs for future discussion. BTW I am genuinely puzzled by the piano teacher article. It's quite professional, although the accompanying edit notes by Miltopia are quite bizarre, and could even become the topic for a Ph.D. in psychology :) --Mathsci 23:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be a pretty sad Ph.D. dissertation. Those edit summaries are utterly bog standard, except for the one which is obviously a reference to an old English teacher who emphasized the difference between "title" and "entitle". What's bizarre about any of it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As you are probably aware: (a) this is a bio of an unnotable person, that should probably be deleted; (b) several administrators and Miltopia himself/herself/itself have indicated that the page was produced to show that a new leaf had been turned over. Had it? --Mathsci 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat reminiscent of the BLPs of User:MathStatWoman from UPenn. Do you remember her? --Mathsci 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I was just replying to your assertion that the edit summaries were "bizarre". I don't find them to be so. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have no edits on current articles to discuss, please could you stop posting here? --Mathsci 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Good day to you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to self. This is what Miltopia wrote:

"It's fake vomit" - HELL no. It is not fake vomit. I'm the one who downed the hunch punch and ate the excessive chicken wings and prayed for death in the car and rolled out the door and threw up on the driveway, so I WOULD KNOW. Not up for debate.

--Mathsci 01:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks

OK, I will start a page on Edwin Spanier when I get a moment. In the meantime, and as a matter of general principle, I think it's a good idea to put in wikilinks (in judiciously chosen cases) even to yet non-existent pages, as a means of spurring demand for such biographies. I know, not everyone agrees on this, and I've seen pretty extreme positions on the matter -- I personally am somewhat in the middle, leaning a towards adding such links, especially after checking that there is a substantial amount of pent-up demand for them (as was the case with Spanier). But please do let me know if you disagree with my assessment. Turgidson 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree. Personally I am acquainted with too many mathematicians (including in this case both Spanier and Maunder) to do this. The mathematics articles are far more useful than the biographies (in principle if not in practice). I find it surprising that there is no article on rigidity (a rapidly progressing subject at the moment and quite a tough article to write) - so in this case it has been the opposite, with rigidity wikilinked to Grigory Margulis in some articles.

For some time Richard Maunder's main interest, particularly since his retirement from DPMMS, has been music (building harpsichords and preparing editions of Mozart), so this BLP would be slightly harder to produce. I can't set any hard and fast rules for working on mathematics articles. I was recently appalled, shocked and horrified to find the state of the article on fundamental groups. But then as you see, I've led a very sheltered life :) My own policy is to add material in parallel to real life projects (preparation of material for graduate courses). Anything else would be too time-consuming. Cheers, Mathsci 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get your point, though we don't quite see eye to eye on this particular (technical) issue. Just please give me a few days (I'm also working on something in real life), and I'll get to it. And yes, good to see that the article on π₁ has been improved; I'll keep it in mind, and try to add it. Turgidson 15:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

French Immigration Templates

"Place of birth of residents of the city of Marseille". Four "of" in a row, that seems quite awkward in English. Godefroy 17:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this sounds quite OK. What was there before was just not very good english. We say "the population of Marseille" not "Marseille's population" in a more formal context. It sounds even odder for Aix-en-Provence. The "city proper" was also not quite correct. However, the tables are a great addition :) --Mathsci 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

R&I – a new approach

R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Europe

4% is not SIGNIFICANT population as the article's introduction suggests. Islam as a religion in Europe has to be from countries with native islamic population, and French people are not. Energyfreezer 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop pushing your personal opinion and stop attempting to wikilawyer to push your point. Your understanding that there is some rule as to what is considered a religion in a European country is quite misguided and ill-informed. What do you mean by "native muslim population"? The muslim population is measured from among French citizens. This is a relevant statistic and you are acting against consensus. Please see my comments on your talk page. --Mathsci 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, now according to you I am a troll, but am I? First of all what is all the consensus and all that crap you talk about? Don't insist in putting France, since it doesn't belong there. I dont care if in YOUR point of view [1] it should be there. Thank you! (Click the number [1] for more details) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energyfreezer (talk • contribs) 18:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

- Oh really? We'll see what he/she says about your personal attack. You need to loosen up, you can't spend all your time in wikipedia with the same 5 articles, and reverting edits that don't go along with your POV, so that's my advice. Energyfreezer 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have any kind of case here. Unlike you, I live and work in France, so am probably a lot better informed than you. I also am not trying to misrepresent the information on the WP page on France. In any case, rather than editing disruptively, you should discuss your changes on the talk page for Europe. That is how WP works. P.S. Please sign your comments. Cheers, Mathsci 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

- - Why should I discuss the change? France has been anything but muslim since the ice age or so, and just because a bunch of immigrants with islamic beliefs settle there recently, doesn't mean that it has a "significant" muslim population. On the other countries I agree, but not in France, not "significantly"; and since you say that you live and work in France, I assume you are not French yourself (Doesn't surprise me, anyone is "French" on these days). And I don't have to sign, the system can do it for me, thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energyfreezer (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Because you are pushing a WP:POV without bothering to justify yourself; that is exactly what discussion pages are for. Your comments above seem prejudiced and ill-informed. France is exceptional amongst Western European countries, like it nor not. But I would advise you again to calm down. Simply deleting six letters and five symbols periodically without any reasonable explanation from a WP article is called edit warring. P.S. Please sign your comments. --Mathsci 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW your pattern of editing here does not seem new: disruptive and contentious revert warring, without going to talk pages, and a slight hint of racial prejudice against muslims [2] [3][4] [5][6] [7][8] and jews [9]. --Mathsci 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Racine Frontispieces

The previous graphic was just a screen capture. I've now extracted the graphic from the PDF (using Adobe Acrobat 7) and put the improved version on Wikimedia Commons (after several trial-and-error attempts). You now should be able to zoom in and see more of the detail when you look at it. I hope you get around to Iphigénie in the not so distant future! Thanks for your feedback. Portia1780 14:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work. Thanks again, Mathsci 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

math notation

For simple inline math notation, non-TeX notation looks good if certain convetions are followed: italicize variables, but not digits and not punctuation; put spaces before and after "+" and "=" and ">" and the like (non-breakable "nbsp" spaces if line-breaks would upset legibility), use proper minus signs rather than stubby little hyphens (5 − 3, not 5 - 3), and a few other things. For "displayed" rather than inline notation, I use TeX and it looks good. When TeX is inline rather than displayed, it often gets badly misaligned or is the wrong size---comically so. Mixing TeX with non-TeX notation on the same line often looks terrible. Michael Hardy 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of these techniques for writing WP maths. I don't think WP (or PlanetMath for that matter) has invented a particularly good html implementation of TeX. Partial derivatives (\partial) or time derivatives (\dot, \ddot) seem to behave arbitrarily in text passages and I have not worked out a way around this – except of course for avoiding editing mathematical articles that might use them :) Mathsci 20:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crespin.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Crespin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —An gr 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi Mathsci. I noticed your dipute with Angr on Quadells talk page. I also see from your upload log that you have some problem uploads. It seems like you have taken images from various websites, tagged them as GFDL, and written in the summary that they were free images on the web. A licensing like GFDL is something only the author of the image can release it under. Even if it is available on the net, that does not mean that the images aren't copyrighted, and that they are free to use by anyone. You have also taken images from other wikipedia languages. This is often ok, but you have to tag them with the same licensing as they have in the source.Only one of the image that I have checked so far was released under GFDL, and you had not provided attribution to the copyright holder which a GFDL-license demands. Copyright laws and policy's can be hard to get, and you probably have to be a lawyer to understand them all, but feel free to ask. I will have your talk page on my watchlist. Rette tast 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cours-julien.jpg, Image:Pavillon-vendome.jpg, Image:Vendome-detail.jpg, Image:Jongkind.gif, and Image:JasdeBouffan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rette tast 22:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Rettetast's talk page

Regarding this edit, which you assumed was the result of racism. You should be aware that open Wikis, including the various language editions of Wikipedia, are not viewed as reliable sources (see here). So, in saying that "french wikipedia is not a reliable source", Rettetast is quite correct; it isn't. Nor is the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia, the African Wikipedia etc. --Plangent 17:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Then kindly explain:

why we can cite other articles when writing wp articles (eg in maths)?
what is the point of wikiproject France?

I do not find what you have written very logical. What is true, as I have found editing advanced mathematics articles or making translations from French sources (rarely WP), is that WP is riddled with errors that are only eradicated by successive iterations, if then. For example today I looked at the french page for Marseille and it appears to have regressed. However when, as in this case, we are talking about maps of city districts, your remarks seem quite disproportionate and out of place. What makes you say this about a map? --Mathsci 17:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why we can cite other articles when writing wp articles (eg in maths)?

Who said that we can?

I do not find what you have written very logical.

It's established practice, based on the fact that Wikipedia articles can be, to use your own words, "riddled with errors". If a Wikipedia article happens to be correct on a certain issue, it oughtn't be impossible to find an alternative source to cite instead. --Plangent 18:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Go and look at any advanced mathematics article, or any article for that matter. We do not need to repeat research on the life history of Racine when writing articles on his plays. We do not need to repeat a proof, if it is correctly given on another page. WP is hopefully self-correcting; we cite from other pages, correcting errors or misconceptions when we find them. I don't know why you are soapboxing on my talk page. I have asked an administrator for help. Unless you wish to discuss edits to articles, eg Surfaces, please leave my talk page. --Mathsci 18:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW you didn't answer the question on the map of arrondissements of Marseille, but instead went off on an odd tangent. I have no idea why. --Mathsci 18:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Wow. That was a heavy message in reaction to a relatively small edit (style fixes per MOS). Exactly who is being aggressive here? --Plangent 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

These are not standard fixes, or else a Bot could do it.

My complaint to the adminstrator is that you seem to be in league with Rettestat. You appeared out of the blue. You seem to be targeting me in particular and I have no idea why. Guidelines are guidelines and certainly not binding. There are certainly problems with images - eg on Mary Magdalen, a total mess - but this is everywhere on WP. You should not feel that you can just come to an article and make global changes as you just did without discussion. Besides, if we forget for a moment about images, and turn to real content, when I edit mathematics articles, rules are more or less made up depending on the nature of the content. These edits occur by consensus. For example when I had to write the mathematics of the Cauchy-Kowalevski theorem from scratch I was delighted that my friend and colleague R.e.b. enriched the article in an unexpected and nice way. But you seem to be creating a rather bad atmosphere at the moment; perhaps this is not intentional, but you and R should not descend on articles to bully good-faith editors who have contributed significantly to the article. I have the feeling you are playing a game with me: please stop and find something better to do with your time. --Mathsci 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I made one edit to the article Marseille‎, following guidelines which are formed from a larger community consensus.

I made what I thought was a helpful comment about the status of open wikis as unreliable sources for the purposes of citation in Wikipedia, intending to explain that Rettetast did not appear to be acting in racist manner.

Your reaction to this has, quite frankly, been over the top. No bullying has occurred, no aggression has been expressed towards you, people have simply been trying to be helpful.

Seriously, take a step back from the computer and start thinking things through. If you consider the matter a little more carefully, you may discover that there are no villains here. --Plangent 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No it was a global edit with a lot of changes - that is deprecated on WP. You may like writing articles on trivia, but an article on the numerically second largest city in France is quite a different matter, And when somebody starts calling into question the number of arrondissements, a well-known fact to most of the french, we enter the realm of the ridiculous. Have fun with your fantasy film trivia, but don't play games with other people. Stick to what you know about. --Mathsci 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To take things in order:

it was a global edit with a lot of changes

I fixed the thumb sizes to user default, per MoS. This was hardly a major shift of content.

that is deprecated on WP

WP:BOLD says otherwise. --Plangent 22:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bold refers to being creative. Do you know what that means? Mathsci 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Both you and R seem to be incapable of reading WP articles. Further down the page of Marseille is a description and map of the 16 arrondissements of Marseille, the topic that you unwisely chose to corner me on. This seems to confirm your own poor judgement. You just don't bother to read. Both of you need to get new pairs of spectacles. Better luck next time you try to play games like this. --Mathsci 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also the original assignation of places to arrondissements was quite incorrect. That is why the disputed reference was added. Of course, because you don't appear to have examined the history of this page or read any of the article for that matter, you would have no idea about that. I worked it out with one of my maps; the french reference page was also useful. It took quite a while. Could you have done it? Why are you editing pages on France? --Mathsci 22:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I never expressed an opinion on whether the number of arrondissements needed a citation or not. What I have written is that open Wikis, including the various language editions of Wikipedia, aren't generally used as reliable sources. And I did so (he explains yet again) in order to point out that Rettetast did not appear to be expressing a racist point of view.

And in case your eyes have slid past that last part, I'll write it again, in the hope they'll eventually land on the relevant point.

My comment about citing Wikipedia articles was to explain that Rettetast was not being racist.
By the way, my comment about citing Wikipedia articles was to explain that Rettetast was not being racist.
Oh, and my comment about citing Wikipedia articles was to explain that Rettetast was not being racist.

There. Good night. --Plangent 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary the list of arrondissements of Marseille on the French WP page is 100% accurate (why wouldn't it be?) and conforms exactly with my map. It was this source that Rettetast was disputing; and he didn't notice the map further down the page. His claim that the French would allow an inaccurate list of arrondissements of Marseille to linger on the wikipedia is ridiculous. You and he were quite misguided in pushing your challenge, which as far as I can see was just a little game. Rettetast's comment was racist. There are no inaccuracies about the geography of NY City on en.wikipedia and for the same reason there are no inaccuracies in the number of arrondissements in Marseille on fr.wikipédia. His remark seemed to imply that all French people are dimwits. Please think about this before spouting any more nonsense. Rettetast made two serious errors: first in his value judgement about this kind of extremely well-known information; and secondly in not reading the page properly. You just blindly followed him and then made some of your very first ill-informed edits to a WP page on France. --Mathsci 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* You don't appear to have taken in the fact that a source can be correct on a given issue while still not being classed as reliable. Indeed, as far as I can see, Rettetast has not claimed the French Wikipedia article was incorrect. As for your continued insistence on his racism, well, the mind boggles. --Plangent 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Rettetast dismissed the particular french wp page. He might later have tried to justify himself, but his explanations did not seem reasonable for this particular kind of rudimentary article. That is the problem and the source of Rettetast's misjudgement.

A supplementary list of quartiers in each arrondissement was added for clarification. The allocation of arrondissements in the Marseille article was inaccurate and I corrected it. I myself used a map to determine in which arrondissment various landmarks were situated. Rettetast was wrong in placing doubt on the particular reference, which allowed anybody to check data. However, if you now try to find out in which arrondissement Andoume or Belle de Mai are, you might have some difficulty. So, in a sense. Rettetast has actually harmed the article by his intervention.

A similar inaccuracy happened in Phedre. The synopsis did not accurately describe the action in the play (theacts were mixed up). I had three versions of the play (2 in french, 1 in translation) to sort out the mess, common to both the french and english wp sites. That is how WP articles are written: it is time-consuming and painstaking. You don't seem to have any idea about this at all. Bonne nuit, Mathsci 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)