User talk:CBM/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

I wouldn't say I was an expert... the B+ class articles should be included in the B-class total. One could ensure this happens by having the {{maths rating}} template list B+'s in Category:B-Class mathematics articles (as well as Category:Bplus-Class mathematics articles), but that sort of defates the whole point of having the B+ rating. So, I think this is a bot issue, and Oleg is the person for that. Tompw (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not intend to vandalise the sandbox, I am a very experienced contributor and editor to Wikipedia, I've been here over a month. It was a little well; experiment with the sandbox, (and a joke) sorry if I have caused any disruption. Retiono Virginian 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah... didn't realise it would work that way. Anyway, glad you liked the changes - I'll make sure to run any others by you first. Tompw (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I just added two references to the article on sparsely totient numbers. I have only been able to personally inspect the Baker & Harman reference. The Masser & Shiu paper is on an issue of Pacific J. Math that is missing from my local library's collection. Anton Mravcek 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For the number articles (47, 666, 1729, etc.), PrimeFan had been adding some references to David Wells' Dictionary of Curious & Interesting Numbers. I'll see if I can come up with another sources. Anton Mravcek 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you just undid a version on the Hitchen's page. I believe Armon's issue was BLP. Are you sure you want to put a long section containing possible BLP violations back onto an article? Elizmr 04:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi CMummert. I have a question. Would you like to be an admin? You've been here for a year, and I have seen only good work from you. So, if you are interested in getting a few more buttons (they can be rather handy sometimes, especially the "delete" and "rollback" ones), I'd be more than happy to nominate you. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I don't think that I'm ready to do that just yet; the WP:RFA process currently seems to favor editors who do lots of vandalism editing over people who would only occasionally need admin abilities. And like getting tenure, passing an RFA seems to require spending a long time before it hiding one's true opinions and making everyone happy, which I have not been doing. I will be applying for a bot account soon; that at least seems like a rational approval process, and will be much more useful for me. CMummert · talk 13:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. :) I thought it was not that bad. The three people I nominated last year passed almost unanimously. Unless you think you made some serious blunder lately (meaning, you know, it was your fault and you could have done better), or something like that, I think you'll have pretty good chances of passing. Also, I think that it is precisely vandal-fighting only which people don't like, and your edit count, with a lot of contributions in a lot of namespaces would be something people would like. So perhaps we can give it a try, what do you think? You can reply here, so that we keep all conversation in one place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't think of anything like that. If you would like to nominate me, I'll accept. Let me know what I need to do. CMummert · talk 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. :) I am travelling now, I'll come back to you in a couple of days. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, here we are, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CMummert. You would need to

• Answer the questions (It is quite important that you take some time to give thoughtful answers, as people can pick at things sometimes. Perhaps you may want to look at other successful nominations, e.g., Lethe, Arthur Rubin, Fropuff, Paul August, etc.).
• Accept the nomination.
• Replace the "Scheduled to end" date with exactly one week from the acceptance time and transclude the nomination at WP:RfA in the appropriate place.

Good luck! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I put everything in place. Thanks again for nominating me. CMummert · talk 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved for trial. Please see the request page for details. -- RM 12:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is published work, but I don't have the citation (which means that maybe it should be removed for now). In the meantime, do what you will with the article. I confess that the "vanity reference" was inappropriate and was intended as a short-term practical joke on a friend (who is a theoretical physicist and a kind of "philosophical buddy"). I apologize for that, since I love Wikipedia and do not wish it any harm. I am not in the habit of doing those sorts of things and I will respect the medium by not doing it in the future. I hope you will forgive me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lottamiata (talk • contribs) 2007-03-15T20:47:50.

That turned out to be a good learning experience. I will also remember to sign my comment this time. Thanks for the guidance. Lottamiata 01:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I left a question for you at your RfA. Cheers, Johntex\^talk 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Just drop any queries on my talkpage and I'll help you out. =) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hopefully this is fine? [1] - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! If you haven't already, now is the time to look at the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes, Warofdreams talk 01:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I am sure Wikipedia will greatly benefit from your use of the tools. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating me. I was not convinced that it was going to succeed, but you were right. CMummert · talk 02:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not expect as much opposition in connection with "lack of vandal-fighting skills" (so you were right, people pay attention to that). Adminship is becoming less and less of "no big deal", unfortunately. I was very pleased however at the amount of support and the very nice things people had to say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was flattered by the comments. One source of the opposition may have been that I was not explicit enough with my original answers, so that people thought I confuse AN3 with ANV. There was also the issue that I don't comment on many AFD debates. But very nice comments by several people seem to have held off any flood of oppose votes. CMummert · talk 04:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Pile on congratulations. Best of luck with the new gizmos. Pascal.Tesson 02:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that you need more congratulations, but I'll add mine anyway. One day when you have time, maybe you can explain to me about Merge/Delete, Merge and Delete, Merge or Delete, and the lunacy that results from using/misusing these terms.  :) VectorPosse 06:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you'll do very well, congratulations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see it is possible to voice opinions and still get approved for admin. My biggest concern with folks like you and Paul August moving into new roles is that it may reduce the special contributions you make in mathematics. But if we set aside the gradually accumulating status and power connotations, it's really a matter of who do we feel is responsible enough to use a few extra tools appropriately. To have to go through such a process to be able to edit a few templates, that seems a bit odd — especially since many (most?) admins have neither the technical expertise nor design judgment I would want to see. Ah well, everything is slightly strange in Wikipedia land. Hearty congratulations. --KSmrq^T 12:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To CMummert: In your last three edits to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 23, you added extra semi-colons ";" to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integer_factorization&;;;;;diff=112061265&oldid=111319331] which appears near the beginning of the section "Prime factorization of 1?". These edits serve no apparent purpose and could be construed as vandalism. Why are you doing this? JRSpriggs 07:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how those semicolons are appearing; I click the edit button, paste in the material that I want to archive, type an edit summary, and hit save. I am going to archive another section this morning, and I will follow exactly that procedure and see what happens. CMummert · talk 11:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a test edit by adding one line to the bottom of the archive. As you can see from the diff, another semicolon was added [2]. I am going to post here on the village pump to see if someone can tell me what's going on. In the meantime, perhaps I should stop archiving that page. The section Silly pictures is suitable for archiving today. Thanks for pointing out this strange behavior - it's either a bug in my browser or a bug in Mediawiki. Fortunately, the link still appears to work with the extra semicolons in it. CMummert · talk 11:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

After more testing, I have determined it is a bug in Opera 9.10 apparently related to the fact that the ampersand is very close to the 32k point in the file. CMummert · talk 01:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at MiszaBot again a day or two ago, and it still seems to have some bugs, so it looks like manual archiving will be necessary for a while. Firefox doesn't seem to have the problem with semicolons that the current version of opera does, so I can archive the talk page using firefox, or if you prefer you can archive it and I will leave it alone. CMummert · talk 12:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that you know what caused the problem and how to avoid it, I have no objection to you continuing to do the archiving. JRSpriggs 12:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping you could take a look at our results on the vandalism study project (which is now finalized) so that you could help us write up our conclusions. If you want to help check out [3]. Thanks Remember 22:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

After your recent edits moving the shortcut to the archivelist, on Firefox (1) the shortcut and archive boxes appeared on the left, superimposed on the TOC; and (2) the TOC became very thin; about 15 en wide. I succeeded in making (1) go away by making the shortcut into a separate division, but (2) persists.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The TOC looks normal now. The archivelist box is offset from the right margin (also on IE), which looks strange but does not impair readability.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the margin is OK now.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi - could you take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VeblenBot and offer your comments on the trial so far? I'll be happy to approve if there are no outstanding issues. Martinp23 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding kingboyk's question at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VeblenBot about merging your code into the WP 1.0 script, I for myself would be fine with that. However, we'd need to see if people are indeed interested in that, and make sure people don't complain about the much larger table. I'd like to note that, last time when we went from a 1D table without importance dimension to the current 2D table, we had complaints, with some people liking the new 2D table and others disliking it a lot because it would not fit in a sidebar as before. So, for now I'd think using the current smaller table would be a good enough solution. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Oleg. I was thinking it might be useful for projects who specifically request it, rather than becoming a new default. That said I think the solution of this running independently with a review later if other projects say "we want that!" is just fine. I did mention it at Template_talk:WPBiography#Proposed_Arts_and_Entertainment_parameters. --kingboyk 11:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh the other thing is that it looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Applied mathematics is manually generated, whereas WPBio is already getting something close to this functionality - but without the pretty table - by defining multiple WP1 assessment groups, such as Index · Statistics · Log —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingboyk (talk • contribs) 2007-03-27T11:13:21.

Kingboyk: The lists like that one are manually generated right now. The difficulty with making them automatically is the "Comments" field, which my bot doesn't fetch. I could make similar tables without the comments field using information already in the bot's memory, but I haven't gotten to it yet. I would have to see whether people are attached to the comments field.

If your project does implement a setup like the one the math project has, and you would like my bot to generate a table, let me know. I will have to modularize the code to make it easier to switch to different projects. CMummert · talk 11:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oleg: I thought your argument was that it was better not to make WP 1.0 bot do different things for different projects. There were two independent goals for this script: to count B+ articles and to give a breakdown by field. The first is irrelevant to WP 1.0 and the second requires a lot of per-project settings (what are the fields, how do you test them, how do you get a list of articles with no field assigned, etc.). On the other hand, if you would like to do the work of modularizing the script that I have now (to make the project settings configurable), I wouldn't stand in your way. CMummert · talk 11:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. (By the way, I don't know how good my argument about not having per project specific preferences is, if at some point some better/more willing programmer than me would want to take over the script (hint, hint :) then the per project preferences and other fancier features could find their way in.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBCOFFEECAT (talk • contribs) 2007-03-28T23:42:23.

Sorry about the mess with the multiple math links! I was trying to put myself in the shoes of a student looking for math help. I'll use the talk pages in the future. Thanks again! (New user) Ken Kuniyuki 06:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If I have understood right, it's a simple text substitution. Yes, it can handle it. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 13:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did as you suggested and made my request on ManinBlack's talk page. However, from other posted comments I gather that he may have withdrawn from the project. Neither requested change has anything to do with the disputed items. Apostle12 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for deciding that I and everybody else have agreed to a bunch of edits we haven't comment upon and haven't had time to comment upon. Thank you for deciding that a consensus has been reached because you have decided something, solo. Thank you for editing my thoughts for me to tell me what I think by removing what I said and sending them down the 1984 "memory hole." Thank you for unprotecying a page that is now reopened to anonymous vandalism. Thank you for not troubling the anonymous vandal by bothering him.HarvardOxon 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Greeting, CMummert, would you mind to keep an eye on the juris doctor page now and then. Certain indiviual has been putting in erratic and arguably irrelevant material onto the article. It really shouldn't be hard to keep the JD wiki-page unbiased and simple. I believe most people who desire to maintain the integrity of that page are getting quite tired. Thank you. Justicelilo 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing and adding to articles for quite some time, but I haven't encountered many issues, so I don't really know many mods or admins and I'm not exactly sure about the protocol for my particular situation...You helped add links on the protected Franklin Lashley page that I thought were necessary, so that makes you one of the few moderators/admins I know of...

I have a question regarding the actions of a nonregistered user... 207.16.198.77 (talk · contribs) Has undone or reverted substancial additions I've made twice now. Both on the Torrie Wilson article. The first time it happened I opened a discussion on the article's talk page asking others if they thought the revert was necessary. After 2 or 3 days, I got no response and quite a few other edits had been made, so I just put my old additions back, along with quite a few others...and of course the very next change to the article is 207.16.198.77 (talk · contribs) undoing my changes. Looking at the user's "contributions" it seems reverts make up a substantial portion of his list. It's almost all he does.

Normally I would send a direct talk message inquiring about it, but with an unregistered user I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action would be. It seems that Torrie Wilson may be best served to join the ranks of semi-protected articles, much like so many other biographies relating to the pro wrestling industry.

I invite you to look at the additions I made (to this article as well as any others) and compare the article to the way it was after he undid them. Please, help me to rectify this situation, as with users like this it gets so frustrating putting in the time and effort to make valuable contributions only to have them arbitrarily deleted. Makes me not care to contribute any more.

How should I proceed? --JohnDoe0007 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at this? The article was unprotected and a wave of vandalism has started again. I listed the article to request semi-protection. Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 03:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyway. I took a look at the Admins boards, in order to see what admin was recently online, to improve my chances of getting a fast answer. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 06:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

...Let me know if your attempt at discussion is not successful, in a few days, and I will look at the situation again. CMummert · talk 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll let you know how it goes... --JohnDoe0007 19:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi CM. Did you never discover this? Or are you shy? Paul August ☎ 16:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your comment on my talk page: I disagree, and I will continue to do what I think is right. 6SJ7 04:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, did you warn Radiant and CharonX also? Or just me? 6SJ7 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi CM. Did you never discover this? Or are you shy? Paul August ☎ 16:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On the test5 template page, the icon needs a |left| so it dosen't look out of place' See [4]. Thanks for you help! -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

the latest on my request about the Torrie Wilson article and 207.16.198.77 (talk · contribs) deletions...

I wrote a lengthy inquiry on 207.16.198.77's talk page a few days ago, and today it was deleted. However the user has not performed any other edits to any other pages, so it seems okay for now. I would invite you to read in 207.16.198.77's talk page history and would welcome any suggestions or feedback you may have for the message I left.

I realize this whole thing is not exactly too big of an issue, but 1) I am using this as a sort of seasoning for dealing with this type of issue, and 2) Given the user's history (on his own talk page AND "contributions") it seems like one to keep an eye on and that may be a problem in the future.

The message I left references the user's talk page history, which is quite lengthy and includes multiple warnings. And as stated before, the vast majority of 207.16.198.77's "contributions" are revertions and deletions.

Thanks for your help and response. --JohnDoe0007 03:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you reinstate this please? Although the original author blanked, it was a valid article on the requested list. I was going to tweak it and re-create. Thanks --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 05:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think to remove the speedy tag when it was first userfied! --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 11:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, to a gentleman and a scholar! Your edit is greatly appreciated. Whiskey in the Jar 14:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article, as Checkuser seems to have dealt with Ararat arev and his sock army. I'll keep it watched just in case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Running it right now. I hope this time there aren't any problems ;-)

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 13:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I had planned to run it today on the skipped article with a regex. Let me know if you have already done it or not. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 08:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The regex would have found 'em, but I was sleeping ;-) Happy editing, Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 12:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How do I resolve the dispute? I've tried to talk to the other user, to no avail. Please be specific. --VnTruth 14:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to have a look at this situation? It seems a little strange, and you might be able to do some good. As you see fit. --KSmrq^T 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, didn't realize you replied there. I replied back. — Alex^(T|C|E) 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove that horrid message at once from my user page and don't tell me that i made major edits that effect the global region sorry I like dragons alot do you?My user name name is not alex. Sorry says user Zaitu2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaitu2 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-06 21:48:59.

re: Template_talk:Main_coordinates_templates

• Don't know if you saw his last request for a correction (relocating the change)... but you didn't remove the {{editprotected}} either.

• Please also add [[Category:Template documentation|{{PAGENAME}}]] to the page.

• Woopsie! Actually, there is zip for a reason to have that page protected now that I'm thinking clear on this... it's already firewalled behind noincludes and when used, is included per the WP:DPP /doc page method, and this sort of simple change is precisely half of why that was invented and implemented.

• Suggest you just permanently unprotect it when you get a chance to tidy up. Someone was being overly paranoid with no sound technical grounds. Best regards // FrankB 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I did fix the location. I'll see if the page can be unprotected. CMummert · talk 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi CMummert. I dropped a note regarding your modification of the template on its talk page. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 9 Apr2007 18:21 (UTC)

Howdy! In the talk for Danny's RfA, you expressed that you felt the sock checks were done "at whim". I'm not sure this accurately characterizes the work put into uncovering a significant sock-puppet abuse case. Was it your intention to suggest that the sockpuppet check was done in a manner to somehow skew the results of the RfA? If that's the case, it's a fairly serious accusation that deserves visibility. While we may be on opposite sides of the aisle regarding this specific RfA, the integrity of the process is paramount, and if you have any evidence that there was impropriety, please let me know. If that wasn't what you were writing, then I apologize for the confusion and ask that you consider how your message might have reasonably been interpreted that way. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KSchutte (talk • contribs) 17:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi, I understand you are marginally involved as a neutral party in a dispute which involves BLP. I don't wish to get involved in that dispute, but I do wish to make one point. Sometimes, an organisation is wholly or largely associated with one person, whether because they founded it, or they are the president, or frequently both. The organisation is the organisation of that person. A completely unrelated example might be Jeremy Rifkin's Foundation on Economic Trends. The organisation is founded to push the ideas that Rifkin advocates. In such cases, naming an organisation as advocating a belief is very nearly the same thing as naming the person associated with that organisation as advocating that belief. More than that, naming the organisation can be a Trojan-horse way for editors to associate a person with that belief. I note that in the case in question, some of the links to the organisations are actually links to persons. It seems to me that in cases where an organisation is very clearly that of a living person, BLP must surely apply. FNMF 00:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, well taken. CMummert · talk 00:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And good luck. FNMF 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

When reading the article about Oakhurst, Georgia there was a link for the "Old Scottish Rite Hospital". As someone actively involved in the current maintenence of the property, I copied all of the information from the historicl section of the institutional website associated with it. Coplete deletion, huh? Oh well. If accurate information isn't enough but committee work is, enjoy. Next time there is no next time. But thanks for enforcing "Da Rules", Jurgen! Alviebaby 01:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)alviebaby

I am trying to get the article fleshed out. I was using the article you CORRECTLY deleted as a place saver with the intention of editing it as time became available for me to get back to it. Sorry, but I'm doing this for the first time. I'm trying to learn the methods, tools, and rules. Thanks for any and all help you can offer. And thanks for the watching eye. Now as for the media reference, is web-based more solid than print for the purpose substantiation. Would referring to the website of the original hospital institution, now housed elsewhere and merged with another institution, be sufficient?Alviebaby 11:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Alviebaby

Thanks for the layout edits and sourcing contribution. Next question regards a picture from the external website of the current owner. Is it appropriate to use the image of the Main Building as it appears today from the street their website? Does sourcing the image add acceptability? I'm going to see if I can do this correctly. Shoot me if I fail.Alviebaby 16:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Alviebaby Never mind. I got to the same problem that you pegged me for earlier.Alviebaby 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Alviebaby

Thanks for restoring the unembellished {{accessdate}} on template:cite news. Can you do the same for template:cite web please? Thanks! --HailFire 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:cite book also has the same issue. Thanks for reverting the changes. --- RockMFR 05:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is now being carried out at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date formats in cite templates. Please comment there. CMummert · talk 15:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm very happy for all your work on the automation of per-field pages. For this to really work, though, template comments need to be migrated to /Comments subpages. It seems to me (from what I have seen) that this is within the capabilities of Snowbot (under Snowolf's able hands). Do you think so too? I'm happy to make an enquiry with Snowolf if so, but would also be happy if you would like to make the approach, especially as I am away for a few days this week. Geometry guy 22:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your writing "Once the disputes are resolved," I'm afraid is equivalent to writing "Nevermore," since the other editors are trying to bury the original idea. I'm trying to reintroduce the original (and only) definition that displayed for a long time at the top of the original article, until I started added examples and instances and writing about them. My one about "Baptists and Bootleggers" started the firestorm with religionists and conservatives of all sorts weighing in. The professor I cited for that, Yandle, has (since the original article was deleted) been corresponding with me about using that term for the "Baptists and Bootleggers" ("strange bedfellows" is his preferred). Most of the other unholy alliances I had in the article are there now on the DAB page -- I'm sure much to the annoyance of those originally opposed. This is why others must get involved, Admins especially, to reconsider the sense of restoring the original definition and other examples for display, because these people will not.

Incidentally, I notice "strange bedfellows" appears in some Wikipedia titles. It would be good to start a DAB page for that, with a short definition at the top. Don't you agree? MBHiii 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you first for taking the time to take a look at Anchor. But please see my response on Talk:Anchor. Note that User:Badmonkey is affiliated with Rocna anchors and is clearly in violation of WP:COI. his objections are the only reason consensus is not reached here. Russeasby 02:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I made an RFC on the talk page, but for the life of me I cannot see a group in WP:RFC which Anchor falls into? WOuld it be Technology? that seems far fetched, but nothing else seems right either for listing this. Could you offer guidance on which topic to list this RFC in? Russeasby 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC entered, thanks for the help! Russeasby 03:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just realised it doesn't include "Probability and statistics" or "History" or "Theorems and conjectures"... felt you should know. Tompw (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering so quickly. Maybe it would be better to have a seperate page for Theorems and Conjesctures? Also (while I remember)... if the pages end up like User:CMummert/Sandbox5 and done by a bot, is the plan to have each table row done by a template? I'm guessing having just a line like {{temlatename|Trigonometric function|top|FA}} would be simpler for a bot to deal with. I took the liberty of trialing it on the "Top importance" section of your sandbox. Tompw (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Professional math guy, huh? How do you measure the aptitude? Show me.--DvDknight 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The understanding I had formed from reading the policies (WP:Blocking and WP:WARN in particular) and from previously attempting to get a user blocked was that while users could be informally warned on their talk page, there was a formal warning process, WP:WARN formed its core, and that admins would not block a user until the formal warning process had been observed. That policy made a great deal of sense, but this whole issue arose because a template WP:WARN advanced for abuse was too harshly-worded for warning a user for abuse rather than vandalism. The several changes I've proposed this morning seek to clarify the purpose of warning templates, to better-tailor the text of the templates to their purpose, and to clarify how policy terms generally and "abuse" in particular are to be construed by users and admins. This is a good-faith effort to try and protect other users from the kind of treatment I got yesterday. It's completely irrational and unreasonable to ask users to conform their behavior to policy if the policy the admins will enforce is other than what is in the written policy.Simon Dodd 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say 'don't fully protect!' because it's the easiest way to find out who the sockpuppets are, but this guy has so many that it's immaterial :/ – Riana ^ऋ 18:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not as confusing as it looks on first go :) Just make a case with the puppeteer (Ararat arev), the names of the socks (so far - there are also many in the deleted revisions Turkey and User:Naconkantari/Turkey_dump), and the code letter (I'd go with F, evasion of community-based bans or blocks). I'll help. – Riana ^ऋ 18:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good-o. I let Dmcdevit know, and I'll add some more socks to the IP check. (Probably redundant, but it might help, who knows) – Riana ^ऋ 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you could easily spend the next 15 minutes adding to that list! Hopefully the ones so far will be enough for Checkuser to go along with... – Riana ^ऋ 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad#Process

Usernames on that page should be checked. Some/most IPs are open proxies and they seem to have been checked already. -- Cat ^chi? 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain (at the right place at ANI) in what way WP:V applies to those articles? I left a more detailed question at ANI. I know absolutely nothing about Kurdistan, which is why I have to ask what is going on. CMummert · talk 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to you there -- Cat ^chi? 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ANB/I can get noisy and hard to work. If you would like, we can continue on user talk pages. After all, no imidiate admin action is necessary. -- Cat ^chi? 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You have already tried the things that I would recommend, so I don't think that there is a lot more to discuss. I don't see any good way to get a community resolution for things like this. CMummert · talk 00:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I tried to bring up the matter to arbcom. It was declined for being a content dispute. Do you think I should pursue that avenue again? -- Cat ^chi? 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If it has only been a few weeks, it is probably too soon to ask again. I thought about it some this afternoon, but I couldn't think of any good way to proceed unless you accumulate a large number of other interested editors. CMummert · talk 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the people including administrators do not want to touch anything "kurdistan" related with a ten feet pole. I was unable to accumulate anybody so far but I probably was not trying in the right location. I would welcome any hints. -- Cat ^chi? 11:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Also people seem to have "flagged" me right now. Any nom I make will likely be opposed regardless of the rationale. -- Cat ^chi? 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you ! i have no problem being patient, as the admin staff was patient with me. I believe the actions of the admin that blocked my bot are completely reasonable as its better to double check and ensure everything is ok, then allow harm to be caused to wiki. I have no problem with compromising and i'm happy to have met such reasonable admins to work with. thank you and hopefully i'll see you around as I revert vandalism. Matthew Yeager 04:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for updating VeblenBot to produce quality, history, and theorems and conjectures pages automatically! I have updated the templates to format these pages correctly. I hope they are working now.

I have also modified the table row format template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Class table row format to display the field instead of the class. I'm hoping that you and VeblenBot would like to use this (and sort articles by field in each section)?

As for the history page, I begin to think there is no point in creating yet another history category, so I have modified the maths rating template to provide a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/History for historical articles. Maybe you and VeblenBot would prefer to check backlinks rather than categories to find these articles? If so, I will delete the category.

I've been enjoying working with you and VeblenBot on this programme! Geometry guy 20:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not check backlinks, since categories are safer (less chance for error). I'll implement the second row-type template later this evening; it won't be hard. CMummert · talk 21:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will tidy the category to make it look less ad hoc. Meanwhile, I just looked again at the new tables, and feel I was not very eloquent at WP Math 1.0. The automatic pages are now all extremely nice, and I am sure I am not the only one who is (and will continue to be) extremely grateful to you (and VeblenBot of course ;) for the work you have done here. Geometry guy 00:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be a couple of things missing in the new code for the Unassessed Class column. I patched it up for today here. Geometry guy 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the script and uploaded a fresh version of the table. The unassessed class is a little painful because it differs in several ways from the other classes. CMummert · talk 13:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you have a moment to run a manual test update, that would be appreciated. I have been adding templates to mathematician pages, and would like to compare User:Geometry guy/Mathematicians with the genuine article. Don't worry if not, I will just wait until tomorrow. Geometry guy 19:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I ran the script, it says we are up to 144 mathematicians. I'm planning to work on an automatic mathematicians page after a little break from working on the bot. CMummert · talk 19:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you enjoy doing some maths edits! In the meanwhile, I will prepare some of the groundwork for the mathematicians page. Geometry guy 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I don't want to interrupt your wiki-bot break, but I thought you might like to know that I've been able to automate the mathematicians page with almost no bot work required. VeblenBot just needs to combine the importance tables for mathematicians into one sortable table (see User:Geometry guy/Mathematicians for the kind of table VeblenBot could generate). The main remaining task is the tedious process of copying the information about mathematicians' contributions to their talk pages (if this is useful). Geometry guy 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

...for sorting out the welcome bot problem last night. As soon as I posted it on AN/I, I feel asleep. From past experience, welcome bot accounts have been shot down every time they've been suggested so that's why I blocked. I fully support the bot account being renamed so a much more personal welcome can be made. Thanks for unblocking as it was the right thing to do. Just to let you know for the future, if ever you think my admin actions are wrong, please revert them ASAP, shoot first and ask me later, everyone can make mistakes, and it's important that mistakes are corrected as soon as possible. All the best, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi CMummert, several redirects to portals have again been re-nominated for deletion. These redirects were part of the mass nomination on March 17 that you voted against. I'd really appreciate it if you'd share your opinion and vote on this proposal. --Melanochromis 05:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes please remove as it is unintentional and invisible to me!

Thanks Cosnahang 10:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)