Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, A.K.Nole, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
gENIUS101 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
gENIUS101 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
gENIUS101 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Re. Phrop
Whoops, I must have mistaken them as part of the article text, my bad. ベリット 話せます 21:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Re Claudia (List of Doctor Who spin-off companions)
"Unsourced" I'll give you. Lance Parkin has in fact said this explicitly, but I can't find an online source. I can't see why it's "irrelevant" -- nothing's known of "Claudia" as a character other than her name, and this gives a context for that.
And "implausible"? That's just rude. Phil PH (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Your edits to Jeremy Dunning-Davies are problematic. If you continue reverting sourced content, your editing account could be blocked. Before future blanking, please carefully justify yourself on the talk page of this article. Mathsci (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let's analyse this in detail. I have copied here one entire posting from the article talk page:
- What you say is quite inaccurate. The sources show the contrary of what you state. On a personal note, looking at your editing record, you seem to be a somewhat inexperienced wikipedian editor. It is not a very good idea to continue pushing a point of view contradicted by multiple sources, unless you wish to be blocked indefinitely. This will happen very soon if you don't bother checking things, To see how wikipedia functions in this particular area, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science, which directly involves JDD. Look at the video cited here before wasting any more time.
- First, the weasel words.
- "Problematic" = disagreeing with Mathsci
- "Revert" suggests that I blindly reverted as opposed to editing. It was in fact Mathsci who reverted.
- "Sourced" = largely unsourced. Sources did not support the claims made, and other sources requested were not forthcoming.
- "Blanking" = removing contentious and inadequately sourced material in accordance with WP:BLP.
- "Please justify" suggests lack of justification, ignoring multiple comments and the four-point reasoning I placed on the talk page together with edit summaries referring to talk page and invoking BLP.
- At the talk page: "pushing a point of view" = disagreeing with Mathsci
- At the talk page: "quite inaccurate" = comments on Wikipedia policy disagreeing with Mathsci
- At the talk page: "sources"/"multiple sources" = only one source supplied and unsurprisingly it does not address Wikipedia policy
- At the talk page: "the video cited here" = a video not cited
- Second, the behaviour.
- Here and at the talk page: "Account could be blocked"/"unless you wish to be blocked". Apparently threats. Of course Mathsci is not in a position to actually block me, and even if s/he were, it would be grossly improper to do so.
- At the talk page: "On a personal note". Article talk pages are not the place for personal discussions of any kind and this is clearly a personal attack.
- At the talk page: "inexperienced". Irrelevant.
- At the talk page: "blocked ... if you don't bother checking things". Implied threats: impossible to check anyway since Mathsci repeatedly failed to supply the references which s/he claims support his/her case.
- Edit summary: "editor doesn't know what he's talking about". Simple insult.
- I do not propose to tolerate this sort of bullying behaviour. Mathsci, if you have an issue with my edits, and if we cannot reach consensus in an orderly way on the article talk page, take it to dispute resolution. If you truly believe that my behaviour warrants an indefinite block, take it to the appropriate forum. Do not attempt to bully me, do not harrass me, do not insult me. A.K.Nole (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#A.K.Nole_disputing_fringe_science_involvement. Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I assume that you meant mathscinet. The correct trade mark is MathSciNet. I used that wikilink already on the deletion page of Jeremy Dunning-Davies. Please don't leave any more messages like that on my talk page. It counts as fairly serious harrassment and could result in your account being blocked, possibly indefinitely. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I said, and meant, Mathsci, which is the trade mark referred to here and here; numbers 2 and 3 on Google for the search term Mathsci. Since I supplied those links in my message your "assumption" is false. As the AMS press release here makes clear, MathSci is a database and MathSciNet is a web interface. It is hard to believe that you are not perfectly well aware of this. A.K.Nole (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm Lost
This may never reach anyone of note, but I can't figure out how to deal with the Wikipedia behemoth. I just want to take issue with the way erotic literature (e.g. Yolanda Celbridge) has been essentially erased from Wikipedia. I want to help, but I find myself in a Kafka-esque situation in which I need to know an answer before I can ask a question. Is there some way in this software bog where I could participate in a real discussion about what's happening. As I may not be able to use the software even to see your reply (assuming I've reached somebody, that is) perhaps I should give my email address: storm.wolf@btinternet.com. This may well be my last attempt at trying to support Wikipedia - my God you guys make it difficult!
John.
CliffordDorset (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)CliffordDorset
Hello. If you continue editing the talk page of this article as you have been doing recently, you can expect to be blocked. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Since my edits to Talk:Butcher group have been to suggest three improvements to the article, all of which have been accepted and implemented by yourself, this warning is incomprehensible and unacceptable. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- This edit [1] will be reverted because you copied and pasted material from one article into another. The problem with this edit is that it is not relevant to the stub and the material is completely out of context in this article. You are unwittingly using the notation of Hopf algebras but don't seem to have a clue that you're doing so. If you continue editing tendentiously like this you are probably heading for quite a long block.Mathsci (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- The relevant article talk page is the place to discuss improving the Minimal subtraction scheme article. A.K.Nole (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, you copied a section of one article out of context into another. That was a very ill-advised thing to do and is not how wikipedia is edited. Why are you adding unsourced material and unexplained notation to an article? That is extremely unhelpful and disruptive. The normal way is to find the material in a book, e.g. Collins' Renormalization, paraphrase it and then cite it. I hope you understand this. Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- BTW as an example of how to edit wikipedia, I prepared this article on Dame Janet Trotter, the founding Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of Gloucestershire in Cheltenham. The same process applies: locate the sources, provide the references and paraphrase the material. It might be a useful exercise for you to try creating an article from scratch like this yourself, just to get the hang of things. You've spent so much time adding citation tags to other articles, that I am quite surprised that you don't understand how to add material properly yourself. Good luck. Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- A supplementary question that I would like you to answer here: why did you paste material on renormalization in the toy case of rooted trees rather than the usual setting of Feynman diagrams? That was a very ill-advised error and indicates that you are probably not really interested in adding content to this encyclopedia. Try adding something you know about next time. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- BTW as an example of how to edit wikipedia, I prepared this article on Dame Janet Trotter, the founding Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of Gloucestershire in Cheltenham. The same process applies: locate the sources, provide the references and paraphrase the material. It might be a useful exercise for you to try creating an article from scratch like this yourself, just to get the hang of things. You've spent so much time adding citation tags to other articles, that I am quite surprised that you don't understand how to add material properly yourself. Good luck. Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, you copied a section of one article out of context into another. That was a very ill-advised thing to do and is not how wikipedia is edited. Why are you adding unsourced material and unexplained notation to an article? That is extremely unhelpful and disruptive. The normal way is to find the material in a book, e.g. Collins' Renormalization, paraphrase it and then cite it. I hope you understand this. Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Warning: please back off the trolling on this article and find yourself something useful and productive to do William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there's a lot to answer here, and I will do so in tranches.
- In response to WMC. I do not accept that my comments at Talk:Butcher group constitute trolling. I made three proposals for improving the article:
- 1. That the definition of the Butcher group itself (as it stood at that time) was incomplete [2]. Mathsci accepted this and added the missing material [3], acknowledging my assistance ("your question was useful") [4].
- 2. That the opening sentence was misleading as it identified the group with the associated formalism [5]. Mathsci argued quite strongly that this was absurd, then made the suggested change ("slight rewording of lede") [6].
- 3. That the phrase minimal subtraction scheme should be wikilinked to the article of the same name if that was indeed appropriate [7]. Mathsci again angrily rejected this as absurd and then made the suggested link [8]
- Unfortunately Mathsci chose to pitch the discussion mainly at a level of an attack on my motivation, mathematical competence and integrity. He chose to misquote some of my comments quite badly (whether recklessly or deliberately I cannot tell). He further issued threats to have me blocked if I continued to contribute to the talk page. He characterised my position on making the article more accessible as trolling, even though at least one other editor in good standing agreed with my proposition. Mathsci's conduct is quite extraordinary and I can only understand it as an extreme attempt to assert ownership over this article.
- I should add that I find this article a tour-de-force of mathematical exposition and regret that Mathsci's conduct will overshadow his achievement in bringing it to Wikipedia. A.K.Nole (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Mathsci. I propose to discuss points connected with the content of the article Minimal subtraction scheme at Talk:Minimal subtraction scheme which is the only appropriate venue for such discussions.
- 1. Cut-and-paste. As you know, cut-and-paste is deprecated in the specific case of cut-and-paste moves for technical reasons connected with page histories. Otherwise, it falls under the copying within Wikipedia guideline When copying material within Wikipedia, from one article to another, attribution within the edit summary is required which I was careful to adhere to. I reject your criticism of my conduct.
- 2. Your comments on my editing. You are entitled to your opinion: regrettably your expression of it has reached the level of a personal attack, and is no longer welcome. I am content to stand on my record of useful contributions to Wikipedia and civil interaction with other contributors.
- 3. For an editor who claims that commenting on one article talk page consitutes "wikistalking" [9] your sudden interest in University of Gloucestershire and Trotter might raise an eyebrow. Can you honestly state that your motives in selecting these articles to edit were entirely unconnected with their appearance on my contribution list? For the record, of course, I maintain that you have as much right to edit those articles as I do to contribute to any that you may have worked on.
- 4. Your reversion of my contribution [10] to Minimal subtraction scheme took place within 13 minutes of my making it (during which short period you also found time to fire off a threat to me [11]). It stretches credulity to suggest that this gave you time to happen across the article, give a measured assessment to my contribution, and respond accordingly. It seems overwhelmingly likely that you reverted this edit simply because it was I who had made it and for no other reason (taking the rest of the day to justify it). This close attention to, disruption of, and refusal to discuss my edits represents a further and disturbing step in a campaign to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me, to undermine me, to frighten me, and to discourage me from editing entirely. This must stop.
- Executive summary. Dispute resolution is called for. How do you wish to proceed? A.K.Nole (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Mathsci. I propose to discuss points connected with the content of the article Minimal subtraction scheme at Talk:Minimal subtraction scheme which is the only appropriate venue for such discussions.
Mathsci challenged me to explain my additional material to the Minimal subtraction scheme article. I said I preferred to reply at the article talk page, and did so, but that has now been removed by WMC. In the interests of a full record, here is that explanation again.
- you copied and pasted material from one article into another. The problem with this edit is that it is not relevant to the stub and the material is completely out of context in this article. You are unwittingly using the notation of Hopf algebras but don't seem to have a clue that you're doing so.
- Why are you adding unsourced material and unexplained notation to an article? The normal way is to find the material in a book, e.g. Collins' Renormalization, paraphrase it and then cite it.
- why did you paste material on renormalization in the toy case of rooted trees rather than the usual setting of Feynman diagrams? That was a very ill-advised error
These are very reasonable questions which I propose to address here.
- Copy-and-paste is not in itself a bad thing. However. In this particular case I selected a small amount of material from a long, detailed and very expert article (largely written by Mathsci). The homomorphisms in question are indeed Hopf algebra homomorphisms but this is not relevant, and i removed that phrase, since the renormalisation rule applies entirely to the image space V. I added the comment that renormalisation is the principal part operation.
- It is adequately sourced in Butcher group: detailed references welcome. The notation is entirely contained in the selected text, where the operator R and space V are adequately explained.
- It is indeed a toy case, and the suggestion that this should be made clear is a good one. Its value to the non-expert is precisely that, as a toy, it is an example giving a flavour of the scheme in terms of mathematical concepts at a level that could be understood by an undergraduate. Another reason for its selection is that this is, so far, the only example of an MSS currently present in Wikipedia.
A.K.Nole (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
Well, I warned you, and you didn't listen. So I've blocked you for 24h for trolling. Please ponder the reasons for this for 24h, then come back to productive editing in areas that you have something to contribute to. But maths topics are clearly not your forte and should be avoided William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please post this block to ANI for review. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
A.K.Nole (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I was warned to "back off the trolling on this article" in section "Butcher group". I have not edited [[Butcher group]] or its talk page since that warning. If the warning referred to some other article, that wasn't stated. For the record, I deny trolling at any article and have been actively seeking to resolve my dispute with the other user concerned. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I was warned to "back off the trolling on this article" in section "Butcher group". I have not edited [[Butcher group]] or its talk page since that warning. If the warning referred to some other article, that wasn't stated. For the record, I deny trolling at any article and have been actively seeking to resolve my dispute with the other user concerned. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I was warned to "back off the trolling on this article" in section "Butcher group". I have not edited [[Butcher group]] or its talk page since that warning. If the warning referred to some other article, that wasn't stated. For the record, I deny trolling at any article and have been actively seeking to resolve my dispute with the other user concerned. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
For clarity, does "maths topics ... should be avoided" constitute a topic ban or advice? A.K.Nole (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that would be advice rather than a formal topic ban, as administrators cannot, of their own accord, issue bans. That requires a ruling by the Arbitration Committee, community discussion, or an indefinite length block that nobody is willing to lift. However, usually when advice is offered in this manner, it's a good idea to follow it (not a "making-you-an-offer-you-can't-refuse" kind of good idea, just good advice). Of course, this may be dependent on the ANI discussion (which I haven't read) - if a consensus forms there to issue a ban, THAT would stick and could be enforced according to policy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
For clarity, does "maths topics ... should be avoided" constitute a topic ban or advice? - strong advice. I'll unblock you now, if you agree to follow it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Block review request
I have requested a block review at WP:ANI#Block review - uninvolved admin request. LadyofShalott 00:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate it. I may try to post some comments here, since unfortunately I am not in a position to participatein the discussion in which my conduct (among others) is being criticised. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think I must reply to this comment of Mathsci which I regret to state is seriously inaccurate
- A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) has been attempting to edit the article Butcher group without any knowledge of either Hopf algebras or renormalization, the main topics of the article, which is at a graduate level in pure mathematics, theoretical physics and computer science. His mathematically off-key remarks, of which LadyofShalott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) was perfectly aware because of messages left on her talk page, came to a head with these two absurd edits [71], [72], where A.K.Nole attempted to copy-paste material written by me in Butcher group into another article, where it made no sense. This was because A.K.Nole did not understand in any way the mathematics or theoretical physics so was unaware that by copy-pasting content like that of out of context, he was essentially vandalizing the other article. This is not a content dispute: it is about disruptive editing by a clueless editor. He appears to have no idea about theoretical physics and made no attempt to find sources (there is a classic book by Collins on renormalization). This is not a content dispute in any way. Other experienced editors have been editing the main article Butcher group usefully, while A.K.Nole has continued making mathematically uninformed comments on the talk page. I've never seen behaviour like that before on wikipedia and I have edited mainspace mathematics/mathematical physics articles quite a bit.
- "attempting to edit the article Butcher group" - not correct. I made three suggestions on the talk page. The only edit I made to the article itself was a trivial spelling correction. Mathsci actually accepted all three suggestions and added them to the article, although he doesn't care to admit that. Why would he do that if they were so "clueless"
- "mathematically off-key remarks of which LadyofShalott was perfectly aware" - comments made at another article entirely of which Mathsci had complained to Lady's talk page in a series of posting complaining about me and again inaccurately.
- Comment: Mathsci was actually incorrect, in that the two models of a cubic surface are not equivalent over a field of characteristic three.
- "two absurd edits where Mathsci attempted to copy-paste material". The first was a selection of a couple of sentences, with the technical formulae copied for accuracy, and where I added interpretation such as the reference to principal part of a Laurent series. The second was a summary and not in any way a copy-paste job.
- I think I must reply to this comment of Mathsci which I regret to state is seriously inaccurate
- I think this is enough to establish that Mathsci is giving an inaccurate account of this whole affair. I frankly believe that he believes that my wording must be nonsense because I added it and for no other reason. He is then backing up his belief with bluster, personal remarks, repetitiveness and accusations against any editors who do not entirely support his personal line. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I must also take issue with this statement by William Connelly:
- This is complex maths, and most people have wisely noticed that they don't understand it well enough to even tell whether AKN is contributing usefully or not. The few with enough knowledge have realised that he isn't. I noticed too, and warned him to stay away (which is why Why do a few uninformed comments on the talk page merit a block etc shows an insufficient reading of the situation). He chose to ignore that warning, so I blocked him. AKN should keep away from maths stuff he doesn't understand
- "The few with enough knowledge have realised that he isn't." I disagree. The record shows David Eppstein doubtful about my contributions, Shell supportive. Mathsci refers to another editors opinion but that editor has not commented in person. This is not a consensus. I remind you that Mathsci actually accepted all three of my suggested improvements, which I think is evisdence of the usefulness of my contributions.
- "He chose to ignore that warning". I disagree. I was warned to stay away from Butcher group, and did so. No other warning was given. A.K.Nole (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)