User talk:Mathsci/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Good call

After I made my last edit, I checked the user's talk page and saw he had been blocked, and then went to AN/I. Good call - I didn't notice it either (although this was the first edit by that editor I knew of). Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Bacon !

Oh won't you please consider joining WP:WikiProject Bacon? :)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Participants!
• You may also feel free to add the userbox - {{User Bacon}} - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
• The Wikipedia:Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Glad to see that your break isn't planned to be permanent. Have a nice one.   Will Beback  talk  04:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ditto William M. Connolley (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom request for clarification

Please take note of WP:RFAR#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I. Looie496 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus

I just noticed that User:Terra Novus is a reviewer, and was made a reviewer after only five days of editing (and his only substantial edits at that time were apparently contentious edits to the Heim theory article). This strikes me as most peculiar. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really surprising. TN had just made his first edits on 23 Sept to a contentious article that RegentsPark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) must have had on his watchlist following WP:ARBR&I. Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

BWV 55

Saint-Jean-de-Malte, looking towards the altar

The organ of Saint-Jean-de-Malte, rebuilt in 2006 by Daniel Kern

Thanks for your help and the image! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding translations, but. When the project Classical music discussed (some months ago) how the cantatas should be presented, a strong vote was against translations, because they are a matter of taste. Good translations are given in the external links, typically several in bach-cantatas and one more in Emmanuel music. To have the full words opposite each other in both languages make more sense to me than translated bits out of context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're a native German speaker, so not having an English translation would present no difficulty. In the case of some of the cantatas, occasionally all the words appeared. I see no point in that. Also there is almost always a complete absence of musical analysis. I don't think that's good policy, especially when it exists in the standard reference (Dürr). In the organ works, e.g. the chorale preludes, the words are useful because of musical iconography. The words are also often important in cantatas, e.g. I thought so for Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht, BWV 105. I've written from scratch several long articles on late Bach work organ works: Canonic Variations, Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes and Clavier-Übung III. (At the moment in RL I'm practising BWV 686, a 6 part fugue with two parts in the pedals, which is mentally quite demanding.) When time permits I intend to do Orgelbüchlein properly (I've started). For chorale preludes, the usefulness of the texts, which in that case are not always readily available in translation, is emphasised by commentators. One thing I noticed is that there is a gaping hole on wikipedia when it comes to "Bach reception". At the same time there is a whole set of books on "Bach und die Nachwelt" in German. In the reception and influence part of Clavier-Übung III, which at some stage will become a separate article on the reception and influence of his organ music, I was fine covering 1750-1900 but after 1900, particularly in Germany during the 3rd Reich, I did not feel comfortable writing about events as they related to music. There is, nevertheless, a huge literature. The reception of the choral works is even more interesting than that of the organ works - much slower to happen even for the St John Passion. Some bits connected with the reception and history are done very well on de.wiki.x.io; for example de:Günther Ramin is infinitely better written than Günther Ramin. Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! (Sorry I see it only now.) I handle the cantatas one a week, the next one is BWV 61, which I rewrote almost completely, replacing lists of words in German and English. I go by liturgical function. Please check. I am more interested in the interplay of words and music than musical analysis, also lacking the terms for the latter, feel free to expand! - The words for (most of) the chorales in Orgelbüchlein could also be found on bach-cantatas, which is not always reliable when it comes to bios, but more so for facts on music and recordings, some chorales even have an article, such as Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, with a nice pic. If you have time to read, my pet project St. Martin, Idstein just entered the Main page, that's where the cantatas began with BWV 39, smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, BWV 39 is a favourite of mine. I have just completed learning the long catechism chorale preludes (BWV 678, 680, 682, 684, 686, 688) from Clavier-Übung III. The organ I am fortunate enough to be allowed to play, thanks to the kindness of the Frères, is just up my road. The organ is new, but the church very old. Mathsci (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Heim theory

Many thanks for taking this up. I still feel the article needs cleanup. One thing I wondered if you could simply help to clarify was the paragraph about calculus/difference operators. I can't see what in Heim theory is meant to be analogous to differentiation of functions. Was Heim modelling using functions? If it simply isn't possible for someone with only A Level maths to understand it, then don't worry. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

AE

Mathsci, the first diff link you added in your comment concerning Ferahgo at AE seems to lead to an edit on an unrelated page. You might want to correct this. Cheers, --JN466 13:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Result of your filing at AE

Hello Mathsci. Please see this result. This action leaves your topic ban unchanged, but please note the advice which is provided in the Result section about future filings at AE. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and also the advice, which I will follow. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I wondered why my ears were burning.

Would have been nice to know I had been given a name check at RFAR. :-/ Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would presumably have had others accusing me of canvassing. I agree with what you added there. Mathsci (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm the arbitors seem to have had a change of heart and specifically cite admin burnout. Maybe they do read what people post. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

They're only human, like you or me :) Mathsci (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not like me. :-0 Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You may well say so. I could not possibly comment ... Mathsci (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

BLPCAT

Rather than carry on on AN/I (as it is not really the right place) I'll reply here. I agree with you over Huppert. There is no clear connection between being Jewish and his work/career. WP:BLPCAT is clear enough to support removal. In terms of how those cats (not lists) are populated... this is something that we are realising needs to be addressed. Miliband was a particular "hot topic" that got noticed but I agree, there is extensive work to do. On the other hand it is useful to hammer out consensus over policy on such "hot" articles because that makes a much stronger case for future changes :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't agree about Miliband at all. He is a public figure and this kind of schoolboy debate on wikipedia is a complete waste of time. But as for other private individuals, for example the scientists I mentioned, I suspect some malice. I looked for Peter Lachmann on the list but he seems to have escaped the notice of these editors. Mathsci (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well Miliband is pretty clear cut also; it's not our place to make these connections :) I'm not sure these are always related to maliciousness - it really tends to be fairly random. On the other hand we have BLPCAT for a reason - and that reason is that people tend to push such categories for their own agenda. It has been let slide for a while now, so hopefully we can bring it to bear a little more. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is to protect private individuals like Tom Körner, not the leader of the labour party, who has spoken publicly and unambiguously about this matter. Now please leave my talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Only trying to help in reply to a point you started, sorry if anything came across the wrong way (no need to be tetchy) :) I figured, you know, you were interested in a discussion on this, will leave you be --Errant ^(chat!) 15:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hrs for edit warring on Marseilles

Both you and PMA are blocked for 48 hrs for edit warring.

He was being somewhat more disruptive, but participated more in the talk page. You kept reverting and stopped participating in the talk page.

You've been around long enough to know our policy and community standards on this. You were way over the line.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hrs for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mathsci (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In the past 48 hours I have reverted Pmanderson twice. In the first revert I removed an inaccuracy tag for a section and a series of other tags [16] It was reinstated by Pmanderson and then removed by SlimVirgin. The second time [17] was for deleting a large amount of sourced content, including sources and rewriting the material as an essay. My last edits before being blocked carefully added sources from the main history reference by Contrucci and Duchene and left in tact the inaccuracy tag reintroduced by Pmanderson.[18] Pmanderson's POV tag on the whole article was removed on the 13th by me and then by Newyorkbrad. The recent edits detailed above just prior to blocking added properly sourced content in response to tags of Pmanderson concerning a reference to Thucydides and a reference to trade around 500 BC. That seems to be normal editing and requires no discussion on the talk page. I believe that Georgewilliamherbert saw the two reverts in 48 hours and did not look carefully at the diffs where I carefully added references in response to tags. I understand that with the second revert the D in BRD should have been followed: however there was no subsequent editing conflict, since I aquiesced to Pmanderson's requests for sources. In the circumstances, given the prior disruption, it would have been far more advisable not to have made the second revert and to have stayed away from the article completely for a period, as I had been doing beforehand. Note that SlimVirgin, who was following these events closely, has indicated that she thinks that this block was not justified. [19][20]

Accept reason:

Unblocked by blocking admin. Doing the template to get you out of CAT:RFU. Courcelles 06:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Even my unblock request is unsuccessful, could an administrator please change the blocking IP to my fixed IP 82.66.163.12 and not the Cambridge University proxy IP that I use when accessing acdemic documents on the web (131.***) etc. That would be very kind and would avoid any possible complications. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Stephan, that was very kind of you :) Mathsci (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no time to review the unblock request just now (it's past midnight, in this time zone, I got up early and and I'm quite groggy). However, I have disabled the auto-block flag and cleared all pending auto-blocks for this account (I think). I really don't think we should have the auto-block flag set by default for users who do not have a history of socking or block circumvention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe we are in the same time zone :) Thanks again. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are the four reverts by Mathsci which were in response to Pmanderson's edits. They occurred over a three-day period, so this is not technically a 3RR violation:

User being reported: Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 19:25, 13 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 402187852 by Pmanderson (talk) supply WP:RS for this")
2. 01:50, 15 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 402439004 by Pmanderson (talk) tagging seems inaccurate")
3. 17:52, 15 December 2010 (edit summary: "rv personal essay of Pmanderson and restoring sourced content - "romantic idea" seems to be unsourced WP:OR by Pmanderson")
4. 19:17 through 19:40, 15 December 2010 (Four consecutive edits by Mathsci with various edit summaries)

The four edits that combine to make up Revert #4 are partial since they added new material while removing stuff by Pmanderson. Since they are consecutive, they count as just one revert altogether. I do not see that it is urgent to lift such a short block in the absence of the blocking admin, GWH. Though it seems to me that Pmanderson was the less reasonable of the two editors and the one enjoying less support from others. (I would find it surprising if any of the tags he placed on the article will win general support). I would have set a 2:1 ratio between the two block durations, based on my assessment of the relative stubbornness of the two sides. This was a judgment call and it seems to me that GWH's action was technically correct. George states above: "He was being somewhat more disruptive, but participated more in the talk page. You kept reverting and stopped participating in the talk page" which I agree with. EdJohnston (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The last edits are not reverts in any sense at all. The tags were added with hidden unsourced comments. As soon as a reliable source for content was located (in this case Duchene and Contrucci), the tags could be removed with their attached hidden comments. I would suggest that EdJohnston revises what he has written about the fourth set of edits it is so inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsci (talk • contribs) 06:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit #4 above replaces 'Marseilles' with 'Marseille', which I gather was the reason the war started in the first place. So your idea that #4 was not a revert is hard to swallow. I believe that other editors are likely to agree with your plan to use better sources, and I support GWH's decision to unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, a very experienced content editor, and other administrators have expressed quite a different view of the last set of edits. They concerned adding sources for the first century of the history of Massilia (c 600 -500 BC). (Although it can't be used as a wikipedia source, here is the city of Marseille's official presentation of its own history: [1]) The spelling in the article at the moment follows the convention adopted since 2002, except for titles of books, etc.[2] At present it is not an issue in the writing of the article, since no decision has been taken to drop this convention. I don't quite know where the extra "s" came from, but it certainly was not the issue addressed by the last set of edits. All my thought went into absorbing the content of several pages of not so easy French (in the past historic) and summarising them briefly in English. (I can scan the pages from Duchene and Contrucci for you in case you have any doubts that I have not been using Duchene and Contrucci as a source.) Newyorkbrad has referred to my editing as "meticulous" and my choice of sources has never been criticized. (Look at this recent multimedia article of 1000+ edits in case of doubt.) Tagging of other parts of the history section did happen in 2008 when I acquired Duchene and Castrucci. The tagging concerned early modern history, before I had made any contribution to that part of the article. There I added sources where sentences had been tagged and in general added new content from the book. Other relevant articles I have edited include Europe, where the statistics list me as the main contributor. Hemlock Martinis (talk · contribs) and I completely rewrote and sourced the history section there a long while back. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

I have reduced your block to time served; your responses have been reasonable and there's community feedback that it was perhaps harsher than required. It's not clear everyone is exactly on the same page on interpreting past behavior, but I don't see any preventive function left for keeping you blocked longer now, based on your responses. Please keep discussion on talk pages a little more squarely in mind going forwards, and come to ANI or to an uninvolved admin soon in the face of provocation (though, in this case, you did that reasonably early and well enough).

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the material Pmanderson added

• Some points about the edit of Pmanderson that I reverted. He based his personal estimation of when Marseille was founded on Thucydides and Justin, primary sources, and a book on the Riviera written in 1905 by Sabine Baring Gould, But it was already pointed out on ANI and elsewhere that the dating to 600 BC is universally accepted by ancient historians, indeed a link to a WP:RS was provided. More precise dating has been made possible because of recent archaeological evidence including discoveries from post war construction on the old port and the earthing of the original Greek harbour. Gould's book is completely outdated as far as this matter is concerned and does not qualify as a WP:RS. Reliable secondary sources date the founding of Marseille to that period, in particular the lengthy history book I have been using, written by Duchene and Contrucci. Pmanderson based his account on primary sources (Justin and Thucydides) and an outdated 1905 travel book on the Riviera. All scholarship in the 20th century was ignored and no proper secondary source used.

• I would not possibly attempt to write anything on the history of Marseille without a source. I bought the book I just mentioned some time back plus a book on the history of Provence, with a detailed account of the middle ages. I don't understand at all why Pmanderson chose to challenge the universally accepted date of foundation of Marseille to 600 BC. Lacking sources he chose a highly inappropriate source by a non-expert [Baring Gould] (but one easily available on the internet [3], unlike the 800 page book of Duchene and Contrucci). Even the Michelin guide to Provence would have been more reliable (indeed on page 174, it reports the date of founding as around 600 BC), although for this type of information it does not qualify as a WP:RS.

• Here is the passage from "A book of the Riviera" (1905) by Baring Gould that Pmanderson decided to use.

Archaeological discoveries come to substantiate the conclusions arrived at from scanty allusions by the ancients. The Carthaginians had succeeded to the trade of Tyre; but Carthage was a daughter of Tyre. At Marseilles have been found forty-seven little stone chapels or shrines of Melkarth, seated under an arch, either with his hands raised, sustaining the arch, or with them resting on his knees ; and these are identical in character with others found at Tyre, Sidon, and Carthage. Nor is this all. An inscription has been unearthed, also at Marseilles, containing a veritable Levitical code for the worship of Baal, regulating the emoluments of his priests. In the year B.C. 542 a fleet of Phocoeans came from Asia Minor, flying from the Medes ; and the citizens of Phocoea, abandoning their ancient homes, settled along the coast of the Riviera. Aries, Marseilles, Nice — all the towns became Greek. It was they who introduced into the land of their adoption the vine and the olive. They acquired the trade of the Mediterranean after the fall of Carthage, B.C. 146. The Greeks of the coast kept on good terms with Rome. They it was who warned Rome of the approach of Hannibal ; and when the Ambrons and Teutons poured down a mighty host with purpose to devastate Italy, the Phocoean city of Marseilles furnished Marius with a contingent, and provisioned his camp at the junction of the Durance with the Rhone.

.

I have no idea either why an experienced editor would contemplate using this as a source. Mathsci (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Re

I appreciate that, and I'm glad you were being careful about it. The issue is that the reviewable circumstances, including the timing of all of these things, is developing into a particular (mis-)understanding; DR cannot function as effectively as it should be able to if this is the sort of misunderstanding that is promoted. ArbCom opined and thought that acting in this way was going to help, though I obviously think it's premature and not going to help (thereby counteracting the benefit). Additionally, your committment to avoid those articles would have also meant that you could avoid unnecessarily interacting in related processes, and that if the appeal resulted in your restriction being extended like with Occam's and Ferhago's, AC could have (helpfully) acted in the same way after a period of compliance rather than not so helpfully at this point in time. Everything's turning into a bit of a circus lately though, so I don't know whether I should be shocked anymore. Anyway, that's where we are at. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

On Newyorkbrad's talk page you have made multiple posts expressing your point of view. I have read what you wrote and have taken note of each of Newyorkbrad's responses, to which I can add very little. My advice is to you is just to go back and carefully read those responses again, as I don't think I can put things any better than he did. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30