This 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.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

You removed the orphan tag on George H. Dickey‎, but it is still an orphan. Review the criteria for orphans before removing tags. I have reverted your edit, please leave tag on until the article is de-orphaned MrShamrock ( talk) 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. But I wasn't aware that the "criteria" had been changed in that fashion, and I disagree with the "definition" that imposes. It seems to me that it makes the orphan categories next to useless, since the main purpose of avoiding orphans is, in my view, to improve the connectedness of the hypertext. You aren't actually citing policy, you know: Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage is not really entitled to be so prescriptive. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, actually the criteria that I cited is policy. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, you need to follow it MrShamrock ( talk) 09:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ORPHAN redirects to the orphanage project. If you think the <3 links is policy, you'd better show me where it is on a policy page. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

click the link at the top of this section that says "criteria for orphans", that I told you to review. It's pretty clear on what is, and what isn't, an orphan. MrShamrock ( talk) 09:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I read that, but I disagree with you about what policy is - I mean "official policy", agreed by the consensus of the community. If you revert my edits and tell me I shouldn't make them, and should follow what your project page says, you are claiming quite a lot more. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have somewhere any information not connected to England on this cardinal-bishop? Death date, etc. would be great. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/consistories-xi.htm says died 1101 (Gualterio). I'll look in books. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I already incorporated the stuff from Mirandas.

He was in Rome August 1099, to elect Paschal II: this is mentioned in I. S. Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198 (1990), p. 62 (and actually comes from autobiography of Paschal). Charles Matthews ( talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry cannot get into town on a Saturday. Family commitments preclude..-- BozMo talk 17:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, shame. We might do one on Sunday when the trains from London are less erratic. Charles Matthews ( talk) 17:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What about a lunchtime meet up during the week? -- BozMo talk 11:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Could do. It would be OK for me, but I don't know how many others would turn up. I'll mention it on Saturday. Charles Matthews ( talk) 11:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles. It was very kind of you to remind me about the meetup. As the 7th week of term begins, everything is a little topsy turvy, so it had almost slipped my mind - I am becoming quite absent-minded. (There is also the deadly outbreak of projectile vomiting at Sidney which is causing everybody concern. The fellows of Trinity have to wash their hands in alchohol.) I'm staying in the new part of King's that was dropped into place by a gigantic crane: fortunately all I can see from my room is hall and bits of the chapel. For my Part III course, I have just finished preparing a simple account of Selberg's trace formula for SL(2,C) and SL(2,R) in the cocompact case which might make it onto wikipedia. See you tomorrow. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 19:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't make it either. I've replied on my talk page. Maybe another time. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Mee, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 05:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are supposed to look at a page's history before tagging. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for correcting those old fashioned notes copied from old fashioned encyclopedias. Maybe you noticed that most stories of Italian towns were given there only caring about their ancient age, not caring at all about the future ones (as if there could be any historical period less important than another!). Ciao and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 14:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This was quite relaxing - really I'm interested in improving the notes, by expanding the abbreviations, linking to pages such as In Verrem, and so on. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted - how did you find it? I have also checked it out and found nothing. PRODded, and if anyone removes the PROD - this sort of hit-and-run hoaxer doesn't usually return to defend their creation, but recently some people seem to remove PRODs as a matter of principle - I will take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 22:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was doing a search with "Swinburne" in it - it came up by chance and I spotted some bad grammar. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Commandments of the Church, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commandments of the Church. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Chzz   ►  08:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

While doing some expansion work on Angela Brazil, I came across this article School story, which seems to have been intended to mostly focus on English boarding school type stories. I did a bit of copy editing to clean up the prose that was there, but it struck me that the article could be the root of either one general article on school stories in children's literature, or branch out into two articles 1) a specific article on English school stories, boarding school types being prominent 2) a wider article on school stories on and beyond English fiction of the boarding school leaning (eg school stories in the US and elsewhere to date). A brief bit of searching didn't really unearth anything more general about school stories in this field (though perhaps my dyslexia preventing me from seeing this).

Since you started the article I thought you might have some ideas about what direction it could take. I have a few sources to hand for work on Angela Brazil that might add to it as an English boarding school and school fiction type thing, which I might be able to add but it seemed worthwhile considering whether it should be a more general article. Did you have a specific intention when you kicked it off and do you have any ideas about where to take it? I can of course post on the children's literature talk page, but thought I would start here in respect of you as the originator before appealing to the wider community Mesmacat ( talk) 16:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, "school story" is a genre, and like most genres, it has some very typical elements, and then there are examples that aren't so conventional or constrained. The "boarding school" type of story is particularly bound by convention, so I suppose the purpose of the article, in my mind, was to try to clarify what those conventions amount to. A "school story" could pretty much be any story with a school in it, but that approach doesn't leave much to say that is encyclopedic, I think. I've just googled for "conventions of the school story" and some people seem fairly convinced that there is such a topic. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looked into this further and absolutely concur now. I am reworking the article on this assumption. Thanks for taking the time to help clarify this Mesmacat ( talk) 05:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Praetutii is in state of mess from old-fashioned stuff... can you give it a check? I also fear most of the info given are wrong. Ciao! -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 00:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done a little work there. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do very much share your stylistic concerns which are well-merited. The problem I'm experiencing, and upon which you may be able to offer advice, is that Muggletonianism is a subject for which it is near-impossible to marshall the sources. I find lots of little remarks by the way in all sorts of texts and monographs. So the pages at present are pretty much the notes from which, I hope, something looking like encyclopedia articles may eventually emerge. The alternative of doing everything off-page and then, one fine day, moving a fully-finished article into place is a bit risky given that I am not the youngest of Wikipedia users! Also, and this is a key factor, my chosen way may well prompt others to have a go - if only because they find the present state of affairs intolerable! After all, 50% method; 50% madness is about the correct Muggletonian ratio! I do admire the huge range of topics to which you've contributed. Long may it be thus. Coxparra ( talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I do cheat somewhat, by adapting old encyclopedia articles. On constructing articles from sources: this sounds fairly typical for me, also, at least in the 17C domain where there is scholarly work out there, but the issue is integrating it into an article. I suppose I have something of a system for this by now: like

1. worry first about getting a basic 'carcase' of an article together - I now draft that offline;
2. start the article here at the point where it's going to clarify things to see it properly footnoted;
3. I wouldn't fret too much at this stage about getting the prose right, since logical flow is the primary concern;
4. move things on to the point where sentences "stand for paragraphs", i.e. the article is in some sort of note form;
5. expand things from there by picking up books and googling, working on the weak areas first;
6. finally move onto a stage of general amplification and smoothing.

It is surprising how much there can be to do in the way of re-ordering and changing of the section structure. Also, I tend to use sources in the opposite order to the obvious one: end up with those giving surveys, because these help to check the point of view and completeness. In short, don't worry too much about the transitional stages and how they look, as long as you're clear you are making progress in pulling it all together. Charles Matthews ( talk) 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I do see what you mean. With all best wishes, Coxparra ( talk) 20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Things are looking up! Thomas Coleman is from earlier today, and is a reasonable and not too lengthy example, anyway. Charles Matthews ( talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article State of affairs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Original research. The term "state-of-affairs" is used in Analytic philosophy and linguistics, where it is well-established (see external link on page). The content of the page as it is now is original research. I propose deletion of the page to make room for coverage of "state-of-affairs" as used in philosophy and linguistics.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jasy jatere ( talk) 19:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just edit the article into something more suitable? The comments on the PROD notice don't suggest that this is an unsuitable topic - quite the opposite. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

hi Charles, I've left you a query. Dsp13 ( talk) 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ciao! Just a note, as I noticed you have Bishopric of Forlì in your link pages. In Italian, and it should be the same also in English, putting the final accent changes at all the meaning. For example, Forli would be something such as "Foh-r-ley", while Forlì is "Foh-r-lee". Ciao and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 12:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

HOW CAN WE LIFT THE BAN I AM CONSTUCTING AN EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION NEURAL NETWORK IN PERU AND ARKANSAS DROP ME A LINE AT PBLASS@LIVE.COM BEST PIOTREK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.51.42 ( talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten our previous discussion and agreement. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Charles, just letting you know I recently uploaded a whole bunch of 17th century engravings by Wenceslas Hollar at Commons:Category:University of Toronto Hollar Digital Collection, and among these is an engraving of Daniel Barbaro, who is one of the bios you have redlinked on your page User:Charles Matthews/Charlton, in case you were looking for one to expand. :-) Dcoetzee 02:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see he exists as Daniele Barbaro. Thanks, interesting. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, now I have a category to put him in. Dcoetzee 21:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this addition which I have spotted rather belatedly. It is very much appreciated. Coxparra ( talk) 18:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. It occurs to me that an article on the Blasphemy Act 1650 will be needed, one day. Charles Matthews ( talk) 20:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A brave person who ventures into that. I believe there are a number of different acts of that year covering interlocking religious crimes most of which seem to exist in disregard of older legislation. One can feel sorry for a magistrate who wished to avoid the wrath of Old Nol. Coxparra ( talk) 09:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be interesting, though, in relation to various themes. E.g. Milton - I've just picked up Barbara Lewalski's biography, and there is a fair amount about both the 1648 and 1650 ordinances. I heard Christopher Ricks talk about Milton and blasphemy last year, and he managed not to mention that whole business! I suppose, as you hint, I'm the sort of fool who would rush in. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles,

Hope you don't mind me posting a message here. I cannot find any other way of sending you a message. I wanted to just let you know why I have undone an alteration you made on the Highgate School page where under Charles Pollock, you changed it from "Master" of Corpus Christi, Cambridge to "President". You are correct that Corpus, Oxford has Presidents but Charles Pollock was at Corpus, Cambridge where he was "Master". I wanted to let you know why it is I have undone your entry.

Many thanks Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newc0985 ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The problem I had, in checking over "Master of Corpus" as I was, is that he was absent from the list I had (at [1], which goes up to the 1950s - should be enough, as he was born in the 1850s). Now, I assumed it was Corpus, Oxford, but it is not: [2] for a matching list. So now I'm puzzled. It is possible that the "British History Online" list is deficient - I have known this happen in minor ways. But it would be good to clear this up. Charles Matthews ( talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - there was a Rev. Charles Pollock (1858-1944) who was a Fellow of Corpus (Cambridge), and this matches the date of birth at [3]. That page says "President". The likeliest thing is that the "Cholmeleians" page has some problem with its facts? Anyway, if you have better references, please bring them up here. Charles Matthews ( talk) 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Charles,

I didn't see your message about the recent meetup until today (alas, I've been thesising rather than editing). Thanks anyway for the invitation. If you're planning another anytime in the next few months, please do let me know. Artie P.S. ( talk) 16:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I've proposed the merger of Types and uses of radar article into Radar. Could you give your input on that as one of the author at Talk:Radar#Types and uses of radar. Pierre cb ( talk) 13:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Charles Matthews ( talk) 13:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, any chance of you looking at this? There are two editors, who hardly edit anything else, who have been edit-warring with various people over this article for months on various issues, most recently over the section on Renaissance Humanism, which they want to present as a direct forerunner of modern secular humanism. One has been rather quiet of late, leaving the vituperative ISP to make most of the running. I think some knowledge of the field is needed, so have come to you. This section of the talk page is relevant. They have also been enthusiastically edit-warring with others over the lead section - really there is a question whether this article should just be a disam page leading to the articles on the different types of humanism, themselves greatly overlapping. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that section needs a fair amount of attention. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that your user page Kiely links to the above. I have done a considerable amount of work on the article - I am sure that more can be done. Would appreciate suggestions. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the list would have been generated from some book by Robert Kiely - can't remember which now. Thanks for letting me know. Charles Matthews ( talk) 21:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I made this page. When I was looking for potential links I noticed that it was on one of your articles for creation pages. Other than that only one other user page and one article links there. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 18:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Cool to find another user that uses their real name. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 18:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've linked " generators" in the Out(Fn) article to generating set of a group; I think this is correct in this context, but this is not my area of expertise, so I just thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Does this look right to you? -- The Anome ( talk) 09:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The link is correct. It looks to me as if the wording could probably be improved: "free group on n generators" is really a single concept. But that can wait. Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

might be up for that if i'm free/invited Andrewjlockley ( talk) 13:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly invited. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles, thanks for the message about the meetup. (I think some of our ozzie friends now call this "wikidrinks".) As it happens I'll be back in Cambridge then as I've just come back to the UK for a few day (I arrived 3 hours ago!). An early lunch would be fine, if it's somewhere central. (I teach at 2pm.) Had you thought of a pub/gastropub? On reflection, because it has been recently frequented by JWSC and HPFS-D, I might put in a vote for the Castle (it has a nice quiet upstairs). Just a thought. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 15:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we first have to decide whether pub or something else. "The Castle" needs disambiguation for Cambridge, but I assume you mean 37 Saint Andrews Street rather than the one on Castle Street. Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be there. Whereever there is. -- BozMo talk 17:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too, almost surely. My 2.5p: if it's not too out of the way, the Free Press is good. (If there aren't too many of us.) But anywhere reasonable is fine with me. Artie P.S. ( talk) 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles. The 28th is a bit difficult for me, I have a presentation to give at 2. But it shouldn't take too long so I may be able to join you afterwards. the wub "?!" 21:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

well done for initiating it, near hill's road good for me (I might also be able to drag a couple of nice wikifolk along from work) all the best Dsp13 ( talk) 23:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you put a link to the meetup page? 86.170.120.188 ( talk) 08:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's there at the top of this section. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So I think we should start at 12.30 to allow time for those who need to get somewhere by 2, and I'll now have a look at The Castle upstairs. Charles Matthews ( talk) 06:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Castle as in Castle street is good. Elsewhere possible William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused now: "The Castle" in St Andrew's St has no upstairs! So starting from the assumption that t'other Castle is the one Mathsci meant: it's not quite so central, is all. Charles Matthews ( talk) 20:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It was the Castle on Castle Street (Castle Hill). Elsewhere is also possible. I've heard the food at the Free Press is good. Wednesday would be slightly better for me if a different day is being considered. Mathsci ( talk) 16:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. Upstairs at the Castle opposite Emma is a sort of B&B which I have stayed for one night, never to be repeated, I hope. Various ladyfolk misspent their youth there in previous incarnations from the last century. (Of course they have all stayed at the constant age of 21.) Mathsci ( talk) 16:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

All things considered, the Free Press might be my choice. I'll now post a meetup page ... Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask as it happens I could not do the Wednesday that week. -- BozMo talk 18:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles sorry I didn't make it, my oral exam finished later than I expected. It's a shame, I could have used a drink afterwards and I love the Free Press! Hope you had a good time and I'm sure I'll see you at the next one, if not before. the wub "?!" 23:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Charles.

I got involved with real life, which distracted me from the DNB project. I will try to catch up with your work next weekend. As you may recall, I'm the one who formalzed the Wikisource DNB project, although I'm not the most active participant. The Wikisource project is at s:Wikisource:WikiProject DNB We have a complete set of page scans there, but as you point out, some of them are not very good. - Arch dude ( talk) 12:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB?- Arch dude ( talk) 12:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I come across the latter every now and again. I'm doing a much more extensive listing here, which you can find through my main userpage. That is to convert the Magnus Manske pages into a per-volume listing; I'm over 50% through with that, but am taking a break (actually creating the articles) because the required correcting is basically quite evil. I'm pondering when to move those 63 pages out into project space from my own userspace, creating templates and topical listings, and generally trying to move ahead. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: discussion here. Regards.-- chaser - t 15:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My only comment is that the ArbCom (minus me, since I have always been recused in the case) has already listened to a great deal of special pleading in this matter. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to ask for your assistance with following problem. I am administrator of the simpleprogrammingtutorials.com website and, due to being novice at Wikipedia, my site is now blacklisted at User:XLinkBot, which is by far mean, that links to my website never appear on wiki. Also User:Oli_Filth chasing the links to my resourse, despite their direct relation to the articles. I don't want my site to be blacklisted forever due to my earlier mistakes and wondering, if there is any means of how links can be added, without breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Asking for your help, as you a senior member and can give me valuable clue of how the situation may be resolved. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.28.246 ( talk) 10:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to talk directly to the owner of that bot (see the page). Much may depend on whether your URL has been added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, or whether attention is being given to your site for other reasons. Webmasters are generally discouraged from adding links to the sites they manage, but there should be exceptions, in my view. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for advice, I did as you proposed. I do completely agree with you, that there should be some exceptions for webmasters. At present I don't see any effective ways to propose an external link. Listing it in the discussion of the article didn't give a result by far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.28.246 ( talk) 10:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to inform you that this page, which you created five years ago, has recently hit some naming turbulence. I thought you might no longer have it on yr watch-list and might be interested. Yours, almost- instinct 14:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I personally should respond on the talk page as that could affect the general consensus. However, fell free to mention my response if you see fit. I just thought to suggest someone might want to try to make such a proof. Perhaps someone else could show how this constant is unremarkable or perhaps remarkable. I personally am still curious to see what was the history of the study this particular limit point before I began investigating it. From the lack of evidence I've found, I just figured no one else thought it was worth the effort. Marvin Ray Burns ( talk) 03:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My academic semester is ended and I finished with the various research and articles that I was writing for real life nonsense, so I have time to devote to the Wiki. I was going to put in some information from Campbell, Corns, Beer, and some other Miltonists into the early life page and finish it off. I hope to have it done by the end of this weekend. Could you look at the page, see what is needed, help edit, add anything, etc? I want to put it up for for FAC and we can co-nom for it. I think that after the early life is finished then his later life can be completed. After that, I will go through, improve his individual work pages, and then we can polish off his main page. How does that sound? Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days - I'll have a further look at Milton as I try to catch up. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ack, I meant his early life - John Milton's early life. The main one still needs some expansions (it is much improved from what it was), but I want to focus on the early life page before creating a later life page (and then going back and finishing the main page). Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - the early life currently duplicates the main page in the "grand tour" section. I have been working on the details of that (on the main page). I have also expanded about Charles Diodati, on John Milton's relationships. Currently I think Diodati doesn't have the notability for a page of his own (there is some information about Herbert of Cherbury and Gassendi, but maybe that's confused - there are other Diodatis). I'll look over the "early life" and see what should be done. Probably some information should be moved out of the main article. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just compared the two. Although the early life has more, I think the main page's section can be cut down a little more (down to 4 paragraphs or 3 paragraphs). I'll look into Charles Diodati and find if there are any decent sources of information on the specific one. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How much emphasis should I give his early works? I was thinking about 5-6 paragraphs. I could discuss some of his latin poems, some of his other works mentioned, some early themes, etc. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is interesting to mention the themes of early poems. Charles Matthews ( talk) 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I’m an active ru-wiki user. Can I ask your advice about one conflict in the Russian Wikipedia? It is connected with Wikipedia Meetups, and I wish to know the opinion of former member of Arbitration Committee on how English Wikipedians would decide it or would not decide it at all. If you are ready to help, I will explain the situation. Thanks. -- Chronicler ( talk) 14:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly - you can email me if necessary. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It’s a very long and very dirty story, which could be the novel’s plot. I will tell it only in brief. -- Chronicler ( talk) 19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• (Part 1) One of the ru-wiki users, who had been active in 2005-2007, before he was blocked for eternity, is known as GSB. He at once identified himself as a producer of social experiments in Wikipedia, and it’s true. Almost all his doings were (and are) provocative, and he used many ways for making conflicts on especially controversial topics for discussion, like religion and homosexuality, and on user’s personal qualities’ discussions.

He had created three main and dozens of small accounts in ru-wiki before these were found by the checkusers. Several of them were used for elections, one account – for writing good articles, second identified himself as «homosexual» and was used for homophobic parody in discussions, third was used for provocative actions in discussions. He organized outside Wikipedia with some other users (not his virtuals) so-called «GSB conspiracy» for coordinating their actions during elections of sysops and Arbitration Committee of ru-wiki (you should remember that ru-wiki community was and is visibly smaller than en-wiki one).

He and his vandal «colleagues» have been creating many obscene texts about active ru-wiki users (including users who are children), which tried to prevent the damage from his actions, placed it in the Internet (in attack-sites) and copied it in user’s talks and on the community portals (very refined trolling). After having been blocked he continued to write provocative and sometimes obscene comments (among these – texts about real ru-wiki users and real conflicts in ru-wiki) in blogs and in popular livejournal community, which discusses ru-wiki. In these comments he often identified himself as «homosexual» (in Russian slang his term may mean also «pedophile») and wrote in sort of homophobic parody. -- Chronicler ( talk) 19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• (Part 2) In 2008 GSB had got acquainted with one of the ru-wiki sysops, and few months later she became his girlfriend (she likes to visit wikimeetups and visited many of these). A month ago they visited one of the meetups (it looked like as she invited him), and she wrote in her blog, that they would have been going to visit next meetups.

After that meetup he wrote on it in LJ community, his words included obscene text about one of the participants (who is teenager), and one of the vandals copied it to the user talk of that participant.

I asked her by email not to help him in such actions, because she should had been known his modus operandi, and it’s easy to suppose that each new meetup with his participation would mean the appearance of new obscene texts and new basis for trolling. She accused me of intervention of her personal life and copied my letter with that obscene text in her blog, writing that she was puzzled by such claims.

Few days ago, after request of two users (including me) she was blocked by Arbitration Committee (she was desysoped three months ago).

A stormy discussion began in ru-wiki. Many users suppose that it is impossible to control Wikimeetups by any rules and are sure that if any users don’t want to see GSB they simply should not visit such meetup (you should remember that he used to visit these meetups without any notice). Some are sure that he is good company and they don’t worry his obscene texts about themselves or other users. Some other users suppose that Wikimeetups exist for creating Wikipedia, and such user, as blocked for eternity for offences, has no right to visit it, and his visit is aimless for Wikipedia and harmful.

For checking my words you can answer, for example, User:EvgenyGenkin, who is now the member of ru-wiki Arbitration Committee.

P.S. I could sent by email the examples of his obscene texts, but I hope that this is not necessary. -- Chronicler ( talk) 19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• (Main questions) (1) Are Wikimeetups the part of Wikimedia projects, or these are only personal matters of their participants? (2) Is it possible and (if yes) how is possible to provide an execution of such rules as Wikipedia:Civility during the Wikimeetups and after it? (3) What should and what can users do with the user who is blocked (or blocked for infinite) but wishes to visit such meetup? (4) Were anywhen such situations in en-wiki, and if yes, what happened after? (5) If not, what would do English Wikipedians in such situation? Great thanks. -- Chronicler ( talk) 19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the answers I have are not the answers you want :-( The typical answer would be that a meetup that is announced in public is open to all "Wikipedians" (and so essentially to all people). There have been examples of people from "cults" or extreme political factions at some enWP meetings, I believe. This doesn't cover your situation. Good luck! Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is open for all people, but some people may be blocked because of their actions. If person in his personal life is representative of extreme cults, but on the Meetup he behaves himself correctly as Wikipedian, it's OK. But what would you do, if you know that person whom you are going to meet, is going to offend especially Wikipedia, especially you and/or especially your child (if he or she were Wikipedian). Did it never happen in en-wiki? -- Chronicler ( talk) 20:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And could you answer in brief my first question? If Wikimeetups were the part of Wikipedia, these should follow principles of What Wikipedia is not, and these are not place for actions which are useless or harmful for the project. If these were part of personal life, nobody who haven't visited that same meetup, should intervene. Thanks. -- Chronicler ( talk) 20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is what happens on-wiki. Charles Matthews ( talk) 21:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello - it appears that you deleted the page for Peter Calthorpe based on what you believed was blatant advertising. I don't know what was on the page, but Mr. Calthorpe is in fact a known urban theorist and there should be a page about him. Would it not have been better to revise the page rather than delete it? Urbanscience ( talk) 17:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The content was pretty much what you can read at http://www.calthorpe.com/bios/pcbio.htm. Therefore a fresh start is desirable ... if there is a Wikipedia-style article to be written, rather than a CV-style puff. Charles Matthews ( talk) 17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I know you work on a lot of the articles based on the Dictionary of National Biography, so I was wondering if you would look at this one I just created: William Hawkins (serjeant-at-law). Thanks. -- Eastlaw ^talk ⁄  _contribs 08:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The text seems fine. My style would be to divide up into lead section/life/works, but perhaps not everyone would agree. (I would argue that if it looks "bitty" in short sections, that's an incentive to expand.) Again my style is to create the article at Wikisource so that there is a convenient direct reference for the original. That means that discarded detail is easily available to the reader; but it's quite an overhead. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I started an open rewrite of the Tensors article at Talk:Tensor. Please add any information you can and copy any information necessary from the existing article. LokiClock ( talk) 01:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is usual to make major changes in incremental steps, rather than pasting a new article on top. That is so the diff doesn't show a hard-to-understand jump. Try drafting one section at a time, or proposing a fresh section structure. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles Matthews/Archive 29! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see: Talk:Cotheridge Court

-- Kudpung ( talk) 08:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I bet you can't wait to join. But in case you're in need of a pointlessly provocative question to while away a dull saturday evening after the bumps, do you think that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley should be interpreted narrowly in terms of the user account or widely in terms of the person? William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a trick question ... broadly, I guess. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I thought you might say that. OK William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You wrote : "The French featured article on the Brouwer fixed point theorem is interesting. Plenty of ideas, history, pictures. No mention of Sperner's lemma, though, which I would say was a failure of NPOV, since it gives a whole lot of space to the later work of Nash, thus favouring a famous American mathematician over an obscure German one."

In fact, this article contains a (too short?) sentence about it, in the "Préambule" section : "Le lemme de Sperner offre une preuve élémentaire". This subject was discussed in fr:Discussion:Théorème_du_point_fixe_de_Brouwer, but it appears that WP:fr lacks of it (no fr:Lemme de Sperner, for example). Do you think Sperner's lemma deserves a whole paragraph in fr:Théorème_du_point_fixe_de_Brouwer? Are you interested in writing it? I can help you write in French, if needed. -- El Caro ( talk) 08:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There are combinatorial approaches to the BFPT, and I think a complete treatment should survey them. (There are also numerical methods for finding fixed points, based on combinatorial approaches, but I know little about this.) The contributions of the 1920s were the Sperner lemma and Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz lemma. "Pendant les années 20, les mathématiciens ont commencer à dégager des principes combinatoires plus primitifs, liés au théorème de Brouwer (lemme de Sperner, lemme de Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz). Ces travaux offèrent à la fois des nouvelles démonstrations, et les amorces des théories en combinatoire pour lavenir." The use of Hex comes nearly 50 years afterwards. Sorry if the French is bad. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have slightly modified the article : [4]. Is it correct? -- El Caro ( talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ça va. Charles Matthews ( talk) 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for having reviewed this article. -- El Caro ( talk) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I see you've contributed a fair bit to the George Wither page, so I hope you don't mind if I ask for your opinion. The page says there's only one perfect copy of the Emblems - but I have a complete copy, albeit apparently re-bound in C18 (thought these were not uncommon??) Don't want to bung it in the scanner - but I could photograph all or some of it in due course for Wiki, I suppose. But would anyone want to see it? I love it as I strongly suspect that the emblems could be politically ambiguous. Please notify me on my talk page of any reply. Cheers.-- Storye book ( talk) 13:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thx for reply. Will do (eventually). Cheers.-- Storye book ( talk) 14:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sections of ten are working for me. As we know, the pages are huge which is a pain at edit time, but without further breaking down each volume, we're stuck with what we have. FWIW, I tend to do my work in edit mode so the reference text is in line with the person name ... not sure I buy into having the first sentence as a ref rather than inline with the name, but I can live with it. Clearly this is going to take us a few years, and my contributions will be sporadic.

I have had vague thoughts about another column - perhaps working from your table structure idea - to indicate whether there's more content in a DNB article which could be lifted into our article.

Thanks for getting the ball further rolling on this. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the size is an issue, but these pages are only 25% the length of the ones Magnus had. For that reason I prefer a list of names that is easier to scroll as a priority - I'm forever looking up and down the lists. The table business is for the future, and I'm open to discussing how to set it out. My first draft of the table and system was probably too elaborate, so I got started with something that would get done. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy. I've been looking at cross-namespace links lately, particlarly those into user-space. Your own user page is linked from the article Wikipedia, with reference to your book. Links from the main encyclopedia to user pages are generally a bad idea; they will not work on sites that mirror Wikipedia and even on the main web-site can confuse naive users by exposing them to the behind-the-scenes 'plumbing' that we editors use. More generally, it's normally only appropriate to link to subjects that are encyclopaedic - that is, that have (or deserve) their own article in the main namespace.

I'd normally just be bold and remove the link, but as it's an important article and you're a long-standing and experienced editor I'm posting here first. If I don't hear from you in a week or two I'll go ahead an delink. Cheers. - TB ( talk) 12:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind - I didn't create the link, obviously. And the book talks about linking across namespaces ... Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting Horae Apocalypticae off to a better start. Now why couldn't I see that? Coxparra ( talk) 08:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way, the project on the Dictionary of National Biography I work on would naturally lead, in time, to conversion of DNB articles on Muggletonians into start-level articles. I mention it because the DNB is really quite full on seventeenth-century figures. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be that most were crafted by Alexander Gordon (probably the only person who could have done so) and that's an excellent recommendation. Coxparra ( talk) 19:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You can track those articles at s:Author:Alexander Gordon, as they are created. I tend to make the text over there (Wikisource) for my own purposes; but others just convert the text from the scans (which can be truly dreadful, or delightful). Officially you can request articles at s:Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Most wanted articles. As you may have noticed, there are now listings from the Concise Dictionary of National Biography over here, making it relatively easy to know whether a given person has an article in the (Victorian) DNB. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.

Thankyou. Exxolon ( talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello there,

I noticed you made a comment on By78's page regarding his persistent exploitation of Wikipedia to his push his own biased POV. I'm having similar difficulties with the user regarding his vandalism of pages related to India which to me seem to be driven by hatred rather than objectivity. Hopefully if a few more individuals report him, the site administrators will take stronger action against him and others who seek to use Wikipedia as a political platform.

Vedant ( talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you are referring to comments of mine from 2006, and on a topic unconnected with India, I don't see the direct relevance. If you have some sort of dispute with User:By78, it is important that you first try to resolve them by stating the issue clearly and in calm language. Charles Matthews ( talk) 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you are the right person to ask, but you have also worked on the page I have a problem with.

I've been adding some references to the biography of George Hakewill, mostly attributing some statements I made about him to their source, a DNB article. In support of the statement he remained a royalist and Anglican till death however I quote phrases from his will. As far as I know this has not been printed anywhere, but an image of it is available online from the National Archives - at a price (£3.50). Can I do this? Should this be excluded as 'original research', even though it's verifiable online (but at a price)? And if it's allowable to quote the will, how should I cite the reference to make it possible for others to locate it? Always supposing they're willing to spend £3.50 that is.

I thought I might simply enter the link to the National Archives website as the reference source, but to make things tricky the will is only findable there if you spell his surname 'Hackwill'. Enter 'George Hakewill' and you get a Victorian.

RLamb ( talk) 09:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I always start from the idea that verifiability is in principle: the possibility of verifying what is said. I don't particularly have a problem with your citing the will, since if a will is preserved, verifying what it says is clear enough in principle. I would wait until someone challenges what you said before being concerned about that. But I would probably have written that material slightly differently. My style would be to put the citation of the primarty source into a footnote, and to omit the "nevertheless". I don't think a concessive feel is called for; the attitudes of people at the time are clearly more complicated than black-and-white. So I would just shorten that sentence slightly, putting less weight on both parts (in other words simply noting those facts). Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tried to follow your suggestions. RLamb ( talk) 10:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information about Eedes. After rereading Schmitt's footnote, I see that Schmitt did not refer to Eedes and Ravens as actual translators, merely as invited translators. I deleted the reference to Eedes entirely. -- Chironomia ( talk) 07:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I have been doing some checking. The Hampton Court Conference took place in January 1604. Eedes did not die until November of that year. A letter written by Lancelot Andrews indicates that the first Westminster company started working on its portion of the translation before November 1604. The letter is quoted in David Daniell, The Bible in English, p. 438. Is there any evidence that the Second Oxford Company started much later? Chironomia ( talk) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Verbatim from s:Edes, Richard (DNB00): ...he was one of those divines who assembled at Oxford and took for their share of the work the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Book of Revelation. He did not live to witness the commencement of the undertaking, dying at Worcester 19 Nov. 1604. You raise an interesting point about the timeline, and the DNB is not infallible. Adam Nicolson's book about the translation just follows the DNB; he also is more specific, that they gathered in Sir Henry Savile's rooms. It seems that the surviving historical evidence is rather slight (well, Nicolson gives that impression). There is something I have just found in A textual history of the King James Bible' by David Norton, p. 12, saying that Thomas Bodley implies that Oxford did start later, though they were going by January 1605. It would seem necessary to write some detailed history to answer this query more definitively? Charles Matthews ( talk) 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some dates for 1604, from G. B. Harrison, A Jacobean Journal. July 22 for the scheme of 54 translators (referenced to Strype's Whitgift), and November 10 for the circulation of Bancroft's Rules, and the nominations to the Companies. So, it looks like a tight schedule with London, Oxford, Worcester several days travel apart. Charles Matthews ( talk) 18:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good information. -- Chironomia ( talk) 01:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvement to Isaac Ewer. I did not like to have to delete the information already in the article but, as there has been no movement for over six months on the articles I decided it was time to act. I am working my way through this list. I am not doing it quickly, and when I delete a page I try to see if there is a quick fix from other public domain sources. Thanks for the link to the Wikisource:Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900 I did not know it existed. -- PBS ( talk) 11:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

DNB (the old one) is being imported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB, which is a project just getting going. As for your list, I'd expect many of the biographies to be within the scope of the project, which is something that can be checked from the Epitome listings. As it says on the project page, requests can be filed at Wikisource for the creation of DNB articles. So, all in all, there is a way forward here, though I'd add a caveat that the WS side of article depends on scans and in the worst cases it can be really painful to impossible to use what is currently available. Charles Matthews ( talk) 11:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have OCRed the page on wikisource Wiki source|OCR Main entry lvi 33 and then compared my scan with that of this one Wiki source|OCR Main entry lvi 33 with this version Dictionary of national biography (1885)

I am not really interested in keeping the original text, because I want it for the foundation of a Wikipedia article, and I could work out how to add it to the DNB Wikisource (it seems complicated). So I have copied it to wikisource:user:Philip Baird Shearer/Sand Box. Please let me know if you are interested in doing anything with it, and if you do so I can clear that Sandbox. -- PBS ( talk) 15:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, it has now been copied into s:Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/39 and the next page. (There is actually nothing particularly bizarre about adding text to the djvu's there.) Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- PBS ( talk) 13:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. It seems (from my basic understanding/observation) that both this subproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB and this sub project User:Magnus Manske/Dictionary of National Biography are more or less the same (correct me if I am wrong in this assumption by the way). So, would you think that it would be a good recommendation that one turns into a redirect of the other or the info that was attained from one joins to the other? I would suggest Magnus joins all of his info onto your list since yours seems to be more complete but I am sure you two can work something out. Furthermore looking through the lists, it seems that the lists contain the same individuals. In preventing people having to go through the checking process twice I think this would give more reason to join these two sub projects together. This would then lead on to making things a lot neater/simpler for everyone involved. Kind regards. For a long time, I always thought that these two projects were two distinct ones (like the DNB of different editions) with a large amount of different individuals. As it turns out it is the same!

PS I will write a post for Magnus Manskes to have a look at this comment as well. Calaka ( talk) 12:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The situation is that the text of the 63 pages of the "Epitome" for the DNB project was created by me from Magnus Manske's pages. I corrected the 15 MM pages and then divided the text up according to the 63 DNB volumes. So, if you like, there was a point at which they contained the same information. Now that people are working on the DNB project, the pages are diverging. But, anyway, there is no "merge" to be done. The main difference is in how the information is displayed, with the summary biographies in footnotes or displayed as paragraphs below the names. I thought it was the normal way to proceed, to work on MM's pages only to correct the material, and then create my own version. If someone else wanted to create other lists from MM's pages, there seems no reason to prevent that. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to turn my DNB pages into redirects to your copy, which would then become the "master copy", by all means, go ahead :-) -- Magnus Manske ( talk) 12:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see why they need to be redirected. Perhaps just a template at the top explaining and linking to the Epitome master page. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That is all fair enough! It just seemed to me at the start (and perhaps to others?) that the two projects are aiming for the same goal. Perhaps you can write on both pages (both your one and Magnus Manske's one) to explain what is the difference between the two? (Perhaps you already have explained it somewhere within those pages but I missed it!). Anyway thanks for the quick replies! Calaka ( talk) 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Err ... I don't think there is any obvious difference. There is just one formal project, and Magnus posted material useful for it, which I then copy-edited? I updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Progress when I saw there were two listings. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough then! :) Calaka ( talk) 10:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The article James Clerk-Maxwell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a good redirect, as it supports mangling the name; better it would show red and get fixed.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Charles Matthew,

I would be interested in joining the next Cambridge meetup. Have you already fixed a date? Could you give me a hint on my talk page?

Many thanks, -- Camtronix ( talk) 22:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing fixed - probably several months now. I'll certainly drop you a line. You could put Template:Meetup on your watchlist, also. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Camtronix ( talk) 13:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles. Can you edit this template and switch the map with a higher quality File:Scotland location map.svg. Then can you copy the digits in the correct positions from German wiki? It should only take a minute. Somebody unfortunately has locked the template from editing. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New coordinates to add in the template are top: 61.0, bottom: 54.5, left: -8.8, right -0.4 OK? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Doing now. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just take out the File: part though so you add Scotland location map.svg!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How's that? Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Look fine. I've proposed some changes to make on the UK place template as at present the map is off line on the left and looks rather awkaward, e,g see Aberdeen. Map is MUCH better than the hill billy one we had before. The map maker Nordnordwest obviously couldn't add the map before because it was locked. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That is just silly. There aren't even any redirects to John Locke (musician). And if a reader is led there from an external source, then the person who provided the link is a complete idiot. "Oh, you want to know about the great thinker, John Locke? Head on over to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke_(musician)." Be serious. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should stop it with the "complete idiot". I think I'm being serious. If you feel you have a genuine case about removing a template someone else has added, the conventional and polite thing would be to take it to them and see what case they have to make. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a french contributor and i tried to enrich Wpen about Vieta. I'have done, at the same time, a page on Wpfr about Tarpoley... but i ignored that he did some works againt Vieta. (Tarporley = Poulterey  ! i did not find nothing about that in france) ... What kind of pamphlet it is. What did he reproach to Vieta ? Is it about religious belief (we ignore all about Vieta's faith) it is very important because he was the amenuensis of Vieta between 1585/1589 (two years or more). At that time Vieta was working on the Isagoge. So, Tarporley was at the right place at the right time. I am now in hollidays. but you can leave me a message wether in french or english. Thanks a lot. Jean de Parthenay ( talk) 16:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cet histoire est d'origine John Aubrey (un bavard) (e.g. http://www.archive.org/details/briefliveschiefl02aubruoft); Aubrey en savait quelquechose selon Robert Hooke. Cf. aussi [5], [6]. Mais le nom est également (?) John Poltrier, que l'on lit chez un lettre de John Pell ( http://ia331319.us.archive.org/2/items/collectionoflett00hallrich/collectionoflett00hallrich.pdf, PDF p. 19). Charles Matthews ( talk) 17:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir: I apologize. J S Ayer ( talk) 01:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Back in May 2004 (not a typo) you redirected "Noncommutative" [7] to article Commutativity which does mention noncommutativity. However, nowdays the body of knowledge and physics applications has grown to overshadow the classical idea of "commutativity". I wanted to begin a separate but central overview article on "noncommutativity" to serve, among other things, as a reference to NC articles already in Wikipedia. What say you? Henry Delforn ( talk) 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly you can write a survey on noncommutativity; whatever title you choose, it ought to be representative of all the material fitting the scope of the article (not slanted to one aspect, that is). Or you can simply make a list of wikilinks, such as list of noncommutativity topics in mathematical physics. These are two different approaches, in fact. Charles Matthews ( talk) 06:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How about creating a "Category:Noncommutativity" or "Category:Noncommutativity mathematics"?, as there is more to noncommutativity that "just" noncommutative geometry. Henry Delforn ( talk) 21:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the majority of topics in Category:Abstract algebra are "noncommutative" in some sense, so that the category would seem to be too broad to be useful, if not further qualified. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, understood. I think a common theme in the broadness of noncommutativity in Category:Abstract algebra and throughout other categories is the reality of "quantization" versus the fantasy naiveness of an infinitesimal foundation. I would like to think about the problem you mention for awhile longer. In so doing, note that the article you named " list of noncommutativity topics in mathematical physics" has been moved to List of noncommutative topics in mathematics which is still under construction. Would welcome your input (perhaps wrt msc or other) before taking it to wp:wpm for discussion. Henry Delforn ( talk) 17:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Shrug - too long to ever finish. Most of group theory, Lie algebra theory, matrix theory, ring theory comes under that scope. Charles Matthews ( talk) 17:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, are you still working through the NDofB? Check out the Jewish encyclopedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done a certain amount with it in the past. I'm actually concentrating on the 17th century at present, and it's not so relevant there; though of course I'd look at it if I needed to. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Are all Jewish encyclopedia articles notable? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume they were. What I have found with the DNB is that you sometimes need more research to affirm notability: what appears isn't really enough. Charles Matthews ( talk) 18:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you wrote most of categorical logic, thus you are the local expert, could we have your input here. Thanks, Pcap ping 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bart Jacob's book

Thanks for that. You may be interested in updating the article on categorical logic based on Bart Jacobs book, which I've "discovered" in the mean time. The book looks important enough to me due to the uniform treatment of many logics/type theories using fibrations, something noted by the (quite notable) reviewers here. Pcap ping 04:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I put it there as a suggestion. Simply saying "was an English soldier" might trip someone into { { db-person } } one day... Seb az86556 ( talk) 08:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, there could be more in the lead. But if people speedy things without reading further than the lead ... well, I think I know where the blame lies. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oleg_Alexandrov, Lothartklein, Wizard191, Gzyeah, Zz9fy4, Legobot, Mdd, Alansohn, Seddon, Charles Matthews , Mike Martin:

You are some of the people, recent and old, who have edited or provided comments for the GD&T article. Please take a look at this new version of the Symbols chart, and provide any input you deem relevant:

• Talk:Geometric_dimensioning_and_tolerancing#Symbols_chart.3B_new_candidate_to_replace_the...
  

LP-mn ( talk) 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The article Yahshuah has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

lack of Notability, lack of Sources, generally reads like a concoction

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Y-H-Sh-W-H Jr. 07:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Charles Matthews! Way back in February 2006 you added the text "There is however a hidden parity question which means that a draw is unlikely" to Komidashi. I am now trying to disambiguate your " parity" and wanted your help. While it is possible you meant it in its common sense of "equality", I suspect that you intended parity (mathematics) as many problems posed on grids can be solved via issues of even and oddness, often of black vs white squares when given a checkerboard color. I'm not familiar with go and there is no mention of "parity" at Go (game) so I wanted to check with you first. You may also wish to verify that your statement is still in context as it has been moved slightly since your edit. -- Thinking of England ( talk) 09:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's parity (mathematics). Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I recently looked at the above-mentioned article and found that it states a different definition than the one that I would use (see the article's talk page for the details). This would be fine if it cited a valid reference (the definition given seems entirely reasonable), but it does not. I noticed (well actually a user who is helping me getting settled in as a new editor noticed) that you are a regular and current editor who contributed to this article when it was new. I was wondering if you had any solid references or comments on the definition that's given in the article? Is it perhaps a physicist's convention? Thanks... Tcnuk ( talk) 12:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look again when I have more time, but the usual approach would be to mention a strict terminology first, and then say that a laxer way of using the term may also be found. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What you suggest is what I'd like to do, but unfortunately I haven't found any references to back up the "laxer" terminology. As a consequence, in between my first message and your reply above, I rewrote the article to correspond to my own viewpoint, not because I wanted to enforce it upon the community, but because it meant that I could add references to support it. The article has stood like this for a few days, but somebody has now stated disagreement with the new definition (and actually move the article back to its old title, though not rewritten any of it yet), so I've tagged the article as needing consensus. I'm sure we'd all welcome your input. Tcnuk ( talk) 09:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently yet another attempt at "simplifying" Wikipedia's treatment of tensors is in the works at Talk:Tensor/Rewrite. As I see you have been instrumental in the past at bringing some sense of order to the mess there, the rewrite might benefit from your input, even if just to comment on the talk page. Thanks, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 02:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, jet-lag permitting (I flew from Japan to the UK yesterday) I'll try to contribute. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The page Dyotheletism which you created as a redirect to Monothelitism was reported as a misspelling of Dyothelitism. I've deleted your page and installed the other one. If this is a mistake on my part, please either fix it or let me know about it. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Left a redlink at Sophronius, now dealt with. Charles Matthews ( talk) 05:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your DNB officers of arms list includes Robert Cook, linked to a disambiguation page. Most records show him as Cooke, and I have created his article Robert Cooke (officer of arms) under that spelling. - PKM ( talk) 20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I was working from the Dictionary of National Biography, and now have ticked him off on the page. Charles Matthews ( talk) 20:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! - PKM ( talk) 21:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you were one of the editors of the Bullet bow shockwave article. I've left some talk on it's discussion page, though you might like to have some input? Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 16:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I did copy edit Bullet bow shockwave, over five years ago ... Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles,

I received a Google Alert notifying me that this page had been removed. I didn't know that a wiki for 3M Health Care existed.

I'm just curious why it was removed. It was flagged for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and I'm wondering what content was posted on the wiki.

Could you help me out?

I greatly appreciate it.

Asommerkamp ( talk) 17:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was nonsense, in fact, beginning this way: "Thanks for your mail and your good contact. We Antico International Sarl, We are a genuine and reliable company in benin and we receive your contact as supplier and we looking forward to enter into contract supply with your company and we need your good office to confirm your seriouseness to supply us Pharmaceuticals formulations worth of US$ 6.8 Million Dollars for the period of 18 months supply on basis.Below is our required products. ..." Charles Matthews ( talk) 18:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I created that page political byline for a friend of mine that owns the blog. I thought it was well done. What? Because it's not a socialist idiot Blog it does not meet Wiki's standards? Your political bias is noted. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Political_byline&action=edit&redlink=1 entry deleted Just because YOU do not think it is notable, does not mean that it is not. Liberal Socialist tool.

23:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by K8cpa ( talk • contribs)

You would perhaps be interested to know that there are guidelines for inclusion of blogs in Wikipedia. I was applying the guideline, so for future postings you will find it worthwhile to research it and to see about compliance with our requirements. Charles Matthews ( talk) 06:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That WP:BEFORE procedure that you were talking about on the mailing list already exist. In fact it existed explicitly in our deletion and verifiability policies for several years. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G ( talk) 05:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Charles, You have deleted my page "Advanced Engineering and Materials Yorkshire" due to G11 Unambiguous Promotion or Advertising.

I am new to Wikipedia and would really appreciate some advice from an experienced user. Please can you recommend how I can alter my page so that it can be accepted in Wikipedia.

The subject of the page is a "network" of hi-tech companies in the Yorkshire region. The purpose of the network is purely knowledge transfer and information exchange thus, as you can see, there is no financial gain to be made from the creation of this page.

The need for the page has arisen due to repeated inquiries all along the lines of "is there some kind of group in the Yorkshire area where [small inovative companies]can exchnage information of their skills and experiences. We have looked in Wikipedia, but can't find anything".

Thus the decision to write a short page describing the AEM network and linking to a number of other related wikipedia pages and webpages.

As the need for the page has arisen from repeated public request, then I think it appropriate to include such a page in Wikipedia.

As I said, I would be very grateful if you could advise me on how to re-write the page to make it appropriate.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andham ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Briefly, wordings such as "The Yorkshire and Humber region is recognised globally for the expertise of its companies in high precision engineering, metals manufacturing and the design and manufacture of components for a wide range of industrial market sectors" and "AEM Yorkshire provides a focus for all of the information that businesses in this sector need to increase their competitive advantage" are always going to look promotional rather than encyclopedic. Any Wikipedia entry must be neutral with respect to its topic, written in an appropriate tone, and concentrate on factual information (rather than aspirations, when it comes to an organisation). Very important are third-party references (what others say about an organisation, rather than its self-description). Charles Matthews ( talk) 11:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • …as, too, is copyright policy. That prose is copyrighted ("© 2009 NAMTEC") and not free content licenced. Uncle G ( talk) 11:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

- Thank you for your response Charles. Now I understand the writing style that is needed and which will be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Thanks for your help, Andrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andham ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The move you just performed on Smith chart to Smith Chart is not correct. Your edit summary seems to indicate that this is a result of comparing with the article text rather than a result of discussion. The article text should have been brought in line with the title rather than the other way round as "Smith chart" is the capitalisation dictated by the MOS. SpinningSpark 02:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I performed the move as a result of a request for move made by template and therefore arriving at CAT:CSD. It is the usual assumption that that requests for housekeeping moves are by consensus, and not contentious. The relevant edits at Smith chart have been deleted by the process, but the essential is that User:Propaniac added {{db-move|Smith chart|article capitalizes as "Smith Chart" throughout}}, on 10 September. As an admin patrolling CSD I really need to assume such taggings are in good faith. If you feel the matter should have been handled otherwise, you need to have a word with User:Propaniac about it all. The business is after all reversible. Charles Matthews ( talk) 06:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok, I see where you got it from now. I'm not criticising your action at all, of course you have to assume good faith (and this request is) but shouldn't you have left the speedy request in the history and just deleted with a normal edit? I only found it because, a) you told me it was there, and b) I'm an administrator and can see deleted edits. An ordinary editor would not be able to work out what happened here at all. Anyway, it's still wrong so I'm going to restore it since you are not making a case for the move. If Proprianic wants to make a case for this he can try to convince other editors on the talk page. Thanks. SpinningSpark 07:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the move. The process followed was automated by a link created by the template. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Mathews,

Two nights ago you deleted the 'Marius Michael George' entry because it lacked ;notability'. Please note that he is one of the most famous angel painters inthe world with over 50 original paintings. This is something that can easily be verified. This seems as double standard to me because much less 'notable' artists do show up on wikipedia. I would be glad to provide names if you'd like. Your response wouldbe greatly appreciated.

My apologies in advance for not being very well versed in wikipedia protocol and for perhaps not following the rules out of ignorance. end

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by HigherSelfArt ( talk • contribs) 10:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The situation with "notability", one of our working concepts for inclusion of articles, is that we believe that where notability exists (meaning roughly distinction in a field of endeavour), it can be exhibited by enough references. The deletion under "CSD A7" is applied where notability has not been established, by means of such references. It is not a matter of standing in judgement from our side: with so many submissions, we ask that the authors of articles not only assert that the topic is notable, but that they do so explicitly and with suitable support. In other words the onus is put on the author, to do the basic job of saying why the topic is notable, and to give a reasonable foundation for checking this. This is nothing to do with what else may (rightly or wrongly) currently be included in Wikipedia, it is a guideline to authors. Charles Matthews ( talk) 11:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Raoul IV de Conches, hoping to get a consensus for standardizing the numbering of the various Raouls and Rogers in House of Tosny-related articles. Since I am just a careful observer and not an expert on the topic, I thought I'd solicit your opinion on the subject there since you have been a frequent contributor to articles in this group. Thanks. Koumz ( talk) 22:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on that Talk page. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you had deleted Jai Paddam: The Movie as a hoax and patent non-sense, but it has been recreated again. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are a couple of insistent vandals out there. Charles Matthews ( talk) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say nice job restoring and fixing up the Hazarth Sayed Hashimpeer Dastegir article. I had only suggested the page for deletion because of the plausible copyright violations of the original author. It looks much better now too. Hopefully we'll actually get an expert to come through and add more content! Thanks again! Buddy23Lee ( talk) 02:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I finally responded to your post at User talk:Awadewit - sorry it took me so long. I've been dealing with family issues. Awadewit ( talk) 04:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Matthews. You have deleted the article about Danze Fantasy Productions just hours after being created. I was actually editing it and adding references and expending the article and you deleted it. Thanks a lot for that. Other people put energy into Wikipedia and some people just delete it. I would have appreciated if you would have read the discussion on this page first! But while reading through comments from other users then it's not the first time you are doing this. Luckily I still have a draft of the article on my PC. I will expand the article, put sources in and will put the article up on Wikipedia again. Next time I would appreciate a short discussion on that first. I'm also not deleting your articles. -- Shorty23sin ( talk) 07:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article contained no independent references, and the existence of such references is one of the main criteria for establishing notability. As a deleting admin, I will always supply wikitext of deleted articles by email, on request. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am adding references at the moment. Will put the article up once it is expended and once I have more References. This company has done a number of good shows so I think they qualify for an article on Wikipedia. -- Shorty23sin ( talk) 08:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Man I don't know what you are talking about! Charles Stewart is in your section titled "list of NFL Officials". He is one of the first African American men, without the title of Doctor, or Eng. or Attr.that has gotten the call up to the "big game". He also was the assistant fo the head coach that created the first black police league baseball team in Calif. Now dammit, if that's not notable then what is???

The article was only a few words, and the title had problems. The article can be recreated. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm not entirely sure why you have deleted the article on the British Grime artist "P- Money". Within Europe he is much more well known than the Rap artist with the same name, yet his article is allowed to stand, despite the fact that it contains no more information and no different information on the subject than the article I have written.

Djwplsh ( talk) 17:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with any other article on the site. The basic guideline can be read at Wikipedia:Notability (music). The article had no outside references at all. Charles Matthews ( talk) 18:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

about makoa Kali and other articles from source-List of eskrima Systems: I have also completed 3 other entries from the same source--List of Eskrima Systems...not advertising but completing entries on all these systems as I have alot of experience in this arena of martial arts.

please don't delete...thanx

Try drafting in userspace, for example at User:Poidog67/Draft1. Charles Matthews ( talk) 06:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles, I note that you have deleted the page Wizfolio. I am still working on the article with Kanersky on making the page acceptable with Wikipedia. Yesterday I have even sent messages to the talk pages for other users who previously suggested that the page should be deleted for them to review my changes. My version has references linked to government sources and would appreciate if you could put the page back till I gain feedback from these other administrators. Kendric Apple ( talk) 07:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please give me your thoughts of the other software on this list Comparison of reference management software? It's a great list but there are many precedents in there for software without any references and those entries only list down functions of the software. While I am not advocating that they be up for deletion, I would like to know your views on this. Kendric Apple ( talk) 07:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted because there was a previous deletion discussion at AfD, which I reviewed. The new version appeared not to have the independent software reviews which were mentioned in that discussion. The article can be recreated at some point if the points are met, but there is little future in having the article on the site until there is that outside evidence that the software is of general interest. It is really not my job to go into all that management software. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

True, it is not your job to do so. Considering that the software has been officially reported to be adopted for use by a government agency, I would suggest that it has general interest. But of cos that is debatable. I was drafting a different version of the entry and I will upload it to MyPage/WizFolio. Can I invite you to have a look at it later? Your feedback would be appreciated Kendric Apple ( talk) 07:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles, would appreciate if you could tell me if this User:Kendric_Apple/Wizfolio is ok for post. It has an independent software review as well as links to external articles. Kendric Apple ( talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You really need to take account of comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WizFolio, and I suggest you contact the user who was asking for independent reviews. I have no expertise in the area. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Charles for your help. I will ask them for their suggestions. Kendric Apple ( talk) 08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles,

I recreated this article as a redirect to Peter Principle. Are you okay with that? - Richard Cavell ( talk) 08:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that neologisms are out of place on Wikipedia. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your compliance is appreciated. -- From an administrator at Brentwood.

You mean the school page you have twice nominated for speedy deletion? Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry sir, you are mistaken about the usefulness of the wikipedia entry for Brentwood School. It is full of inaccuracies, vandalism, and mis-information. It serves no purpose. If you truly believe that this page should not be deleted, you should follow wikipedia protocol regarding stopping a speedy delete.

How about following Wikipedia protocol by posting at the bottom of the page, and signing with four tildes? But you are joking, of course. Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Vox Pop (newspaper), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vox Pop (newspaper). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orange Mike | Talk 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Charles,

I have a question on the article about modular curves. It's not that there is anything wrong with the article, but there is just a little piece of it that I don't understand. What do you mean by the quotient H/Γ? I mean, the upper half plane doesn't really contain Γ as a quotient, does it?

Thanks a lot in advance, ElNuevoEinstein ( talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a quotient space for a group action. Charles Matthews ( talk) 10:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. ElNuevoEinstein ( talk) 12:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Roy Eugene Davis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eugene Davis. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind ( talk) 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles,

I have worked with reading and transcribing a lot of South American texts including placing two books on Wikisource -- but not only those two books. There are other works already on wikisource that use the spelling of Matto Grosso as opposed to Mato Grosso that Wikipedia shows. I changed the redirect that you changed back moments ago so that a search on Wikipedia for Matto Grosso would pick up and that link and wording I had explained this. Now a search on Wikipedia only shows Mato Grosso. However you want to fix it, a search for Matto Grosso should show. Go back and look at that link I created and click on it. Behold! Matto Grosso is mentioned in many works including the travels of Teddy Roosevelt where he mentions Matto Grosso but not "Mato Grosso". We need a search that will bring up both-at-once or either of the two spellings one-at-a-time.

Kind regards,  – Brother Officer ^Talk 07:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, please slow down. I don't think you have understood the purpose of the redirect you have been changing. I do know what we need here on Wikipedia, and it is a redirect from the spelling to the other one. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand the purpose of a redirect (that I changed once ((singular)) not "changing" as in more than once ((plural))). But it was redirecting from the original "Matto Grosso" to Mato Grosso and I sought both spellings. You have done a "sister tweak" where you added [s:Matto+Grosso] for search and now that is correct. It wasn't before I probed and asked questions and you sought and resolved the situation. So, I feel I understand what needed to be done =but I did not know how to do it.= You now have it correct. You are a good worker because you kept at it until it was correct. Have a great day, Charles!

Kind regards,  – Brother Officer ^Talk 21:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message of appreciation on the Irish bishops. I realised that the Irish bishop articles needed to be brought-up to scratch, some I’ve done better than others. There are others yet to receive any attention, but I will get there, eventually. - Scrivener-uki ( talk) 16:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As you probably realise, I have an ulterior motive: converting DNB articles, and then needing to hang them on a list. In the bigger picture I work (currently) on the 17th century from all directions (within the DNB subproject), and so the bishops get added as they come to hand, really. But there are plenty of them that will get articles of some sort one day. Charles Matthews ( talk) 18:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello to you. I see you are an admin here. I declare that as an editor, I am currently engaged in a number of presentation-based edit wars with a User:Zsero. I find that there is no civil communication with this particular user and his edits in turn (concerning articles where I have contributed) are blanantly not in good faith despite innocent summaries and constantly running for cover beneath the WP:LEDE shelter every time an argument gets too hot for him. I did try to explain that one man's LEDE is not necessarily "better" than another person's in the eyes of all. The edits seem trivial, I wouldn't normally mind such revisions except that he is using such a shallow argument (tight ledes/cluttered intros) for a handful of words. It is not a big deal, but we have ongoing edit wars, the conditions to which either of us are likely to violate. I hope you see that my alternative is to sit back which the other user is not prepared to do himself! We've entered the theatre of conflict and I will gladly step back only if instructed to do so by an admin. The information is clear from my recent edits (the articles and the summaries in reverting Zsero). For quicker reference, feel free to look at the edit history of these articles: Yvon Neptune, Kalkot Mataskelekele whence you'll follow a lead to a good half a dozen or so others. I'd appreciate your intervention, reducing article access or even blocking someone - me even though I hope not. I just say that this needs attention now rather than after the 3RR has been breeched. Thanks. Evlekis ( talk) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My initial comments: at Yvon Neptune, where there is a lead section (there is not at the other example you give) it seems to me that either style is acceptable. I happen to prefer fewer words, but this is not the sort of difference that is substantive. The general rule is that where there are two equally good ways to write something, no one should insist on changing everything to their preferred way. In other words you are probably both equally at fault. If this goes any further I would expect that to be the verdict. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the response. I realise this and you're right. My own conduct is not always desirable I accept, and we know to expect a revert when the other user returns. Do you think you could keep an eye on that particular page for the next couple of days or so? It may be disciplinary which solves the problem, again, to either party me included. Evlekis ( talk) 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On my watchlist. Charles Matthews ( talk) 16:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Evlekis started out with the claim that "This is one of the official standards here"; on being challenged he could not point to that standard, and it really is not good enough for him now to say that "this may not be an actual MOS guideline but I have felt it to be an improvement". Instead of acknowledging his error, he supplied me with a list of articles he had changed on the basis of this supposed standard, and explicitly challenged me to revert them; he can hardly complain when I took him up on that challenge, reviewed each change on the list, found the lede of each of those articles in need of tightening, and did so. Instead of justifying his preferred version, now that the "standard" he had relied on proved not to exist, he petulantly declared war, and reverted all of my changes, offering no reason at all.

Further, while I have restricted my comments to his actual edits and positions, he has referred to me as a "trol" [8] [9] [10] [11], a "halfhead" [12] with a "tiny excuse for a brain" [13], falsely accused me of vandalism [14] [15], and admonished me to "try tightening your mouth instead" [16]. And yet he has the hide to prate about civility.

My position is simple: every single one of my edits was intended to improve the article, not to make a WP:POINT; his edits have been blatantly for no reason but to make a point. My preferred versions of these articles are each objectively better than his, completely independent of our personal dispute; he no longer even claims that his changes are actually improving the articles, but merely objects to having them reverted. Therefore I am justified in restoring those versions, while by reinstating his changes he is engaging in what he has explicitly acknowledged to be an edit war. On examining my conscience here I find it completely clear; while I have certainly been provoked by him, I have not let my feelings affect the content of my edits (as opposed to the choice of which articles to edit in the first place). So I see no reason to retreat, and I will not. -- Zsero ( talk) 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You both should obviously stop all of this, right now. You will neither of you improve your reputations by continuing any of this. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since my edits are all improvements to the articles in question, I see no reason to refrain from making them. His edits he doesn't even claim are improvements; for instance, there is no conceivable way in which this edit can be seen, by anybody, as an improvement, and indeed he doesn't make such a claim, but made it anyway for no purpose but to war with me. I am not going to put up with that. -- Zsero ( talk) 19:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

When I say "stop", it is my strong suggestion that you stop arguing your respective cases. Nothing good will come of trying to win the argument. Concentrate on other improvements to the encyclopedia. (The fact that I have to fight through an edit conflict as you find something further to say just tells me I'm right here.) Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted; I disagree with it. BTW, the "something further" was the addition of a link to back up a claim that I thought shouldn't rest on my mere say-so. -- Zsero ( talk) 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

From this point I shall abstain from producing negative remarks towards Zsero. I also believe that I have found a better way to resolve the issue without restoring former revisions and by "tigheting the lede" at the same time. I assure you that my edits are all designed to be constructive and positive. At this stage I could say a lot more in my defence but as you have stated, to "stop arguing" is the best solution, atleast for the moment. Evlekis ( talk) 06:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the lede into a separate "overview" is not a resolution. The lede is the overview; that's what it's for. The first sentence should give the main reason why he's notable; a president is notable for that, not merely for being a politician. And saying he's a politician adds nothing, because it's implied by his being president. The rest of the lede should give the highlights of his life, but leaving out details that don't contribute to his notability. And it should do so in as few words as possible. -- Zsero ( talk) 07:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you are mostly wrong about that. The first sentence is the topic sentence: its duty is to define the topic briefly. The onus to establish notability is on the entire article. There are presidents of countries who are much better known for other things (for example academic distinction) than for being politicians. See for example Mary Robinson. Since you are reading too much into the desired outcome, and are over-emphasising notability as an issue for the lede, it would be a help if you moderated your position. A lede that summarises the article fairly, and has a proper topic sentence, and is not more than a few paras, is doing the correct job. As I said before, I actually favour concision in a lede, and if you look at my new articles you will see that I write short ledes for biographies. But I don't think this is a topic about which people should be dogmatic. Something a little more leisurely than an executive summary can be fine. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He's back calling me a "trol", and deliberately adding excess verbiage to ledes, i.e. lots of words that add absolutely nothing to the content. As for Mary Robinson, President of Ireland is a ceremonial position, and is therefore obviously not what makes a person notable; rather it's a reward for the person's notable contributions elsewhere — sometimes in politics but sometimes not. That's not the case with the articles we're discussing. Oh, and read WP:LEDE#First Sentence; the lede sentence should tell the reader why the subject is notable. Elevekis's edits are deliberately not doing that. -- Zsero ( talk) 08:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd be better off citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph, which is much more full, relevant and reasonable, and uses the word "significant" more accurately, than being argumentative. I shall give User:Evlekis a civility warning. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it you mean my reference to trolling. Not that I thought that of all terms to cause offence, I shall not use it. As you yourself stated Charles in your original statement, both versions are fine. It has come to the point that I no longer know what to do now to satisfy Zsero. I'll explain my situation to you as I hadn't done previously: I feel that certain individuals are better presented by the word "is". I accept that this is not the case with all living persons. For example, Margaret Thatcher as you know is on her way out (not meant in any way bad). Her reasons for notability all lie in the past and nothing now can reverse that. As such, I have decided in good faith to abandon this edit [17]. There is something which makes the likes of Yvon Neptune and John Kufuor very different and that is that they are 100% active in their professions of notability. Zsero is right that president implies politician. But it is not right that no longer being president means that the show is over and the subject's grades all lie in the past. In the UK, former front-benchers are still local MPs for their constituencies; former bassists with certain rock bands can still perform elsewhere!!! Same principle, it is not all political. Anyhow, I just wanted to sound you out on why I have favoured these openings. In the meantime, I find myself in a "damnded if you do, damnded if you don't" predicament. Zsero is Hell Bent on reducing ledes, so I tried to introduce ledes such as this [18] designed to contain the usage I promoted and maintain a tight intro (to satisfy Zsero). But as you see here [19], it did not do as I had wished it to. Zsero in turn has not yielded an inch, to him "was means was - what now is irrelevant" one minute and "was means was - and these details must be on the lede" the next. Too much information today, not enough tomorrow. I really have tried Charles. I just don't know what to do. Being civil is one thing I intend to do I assure you. Evlekis ( talk) 08:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually you do know what to do - stop making personal attacks, and let someone else worry about the ledes. If you have nothing better to do on Wikipedia, walk away from the computer. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. What is the point in worrying about a few silly words. The personal attacks have already stopped as far as I'm concerned. There are millions of articles which can not only be imrpoved but to which I can insert new information. After all, that is what I have been doing for most of the past four years. I've never been blocked so why put myself in the firing line. Thanks Charles. Shalln't bother you again with any of this. All the best. Evlekis ( talk) 09:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)