Archives

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII XXVIII XXIX

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, welcome back!! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! Welcome back Mathsci. --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the choir! Great news! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to watching your edits on mathematics articles, articles that I tend to read more than I edit because I need to deepen my understanding of mathematics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 14:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just at the moment I am brushing up on the nuts and bolts of editing. I am a bit rusty after all this time. Mathematics articles will have to wait: possibly an article on Victor Kac's 1980 generalisation of Gabriel's theorem. Half the chorale preludes in Orgelbüchlein also remain without commentaries. Mathsci (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why upload free images to WP, where no one can find them. Much better to use Commons. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came across your article on the Royal Collection only by accident, but was happy to find an appropriate place for the image I'd unearthed in 600 sides of manuscript. It had taken me a little while to decipher and identify the latin text, as it was not in the official BL record. The process of finding the code for BL digitised image pages (to use dezoomify) involved trial and error: files like File:Bolingbroke-entering-London-froissart-chroniques.png might give useful hints to other wikipedians. There was a similar problem with original manuscripts in the Bach archive in Leipzig. I could not solve the problem for the old ordnance survey maps in the National Museum of Scotland so had to splice several images. Copying to Commons is usually done automatically by the Ogrebot. Mathsci (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Royal manuscripts, British Library (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry IV

Tom Sturridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry VI

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orgelbüchlein, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Canon and Musette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A case-amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Amendment request: Race and intelligence (May 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orgelbüchlein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johann Walther (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Mathsci, I noticed you wrote an extensive behavioural case to link one of the socks of Satt2 to the sockmaster (quite) some time ago. Well, he has once again returned. Would you mind looking at the new SPI case I made and perhaps present your opinion now once again? Bests and thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter of Durham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Society of Antiquaries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mathsci. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help to images and other improvements to the 1716 cantata? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the Leipzig Bach archive. Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image! - For BWV 4, thank you for the added source, but where is going to be used? I don't have page numbers. You'd need to add | ref = harv to the ref, and call it by saying in curly brackets "sfn|Wolff|1997|p=whateverpagenumber". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next on the wishlist: either some painting of a Baroque Lutheran wedding of about the time, or a piece of music, for O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit, BWV 210, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits, call them unjustified, and then reapply them? ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One edit. My first edit summary makes it clear. If not, look up Margaret Beaufort. Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset is on my watchlist, since I was the last person to add any substantial content. Mathsci (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mathsci The alignment of two images on this page both left and right in the same paragraph (buildings) causes the orphaning of a large block of text. This is not preferred and it would be better to stagger the images. Also the image in the history section causes the same problem with the infobox on low resolution screens. Please also respect the removal of Annilese Miskimmon as there is no reference to her being an alumni, with no wiki page either. Thanks Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No the old alignment was this.[1] I added the Hall Portrait of Lady Margaret Beaufort to St John's College. Of the many Christ's portraits, I found only this one on the web. It belongs in the history section, since she is the Foundress. I sorted out the mess in the gallery and found the originals for the Hall portraits of Milton, Paley and Darwin. St John's College has far more text and is much better written. The only place where a really new image was added was in the history section, and there is a "clear" command. The infobox goes somewhat deep into the Christ's article, mainly because of the general lack of content. I don't think I added Annilese Miskimmon as an alumna, so I'm not sure what happened there. I think I removed one woman listed as an alumna before Christ's admitted women. Your claims about images are not correct. Joan of Arc is a featured article with images on the left; there are many others. Mathsci (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that Linda Colley is not an alumna. She was a Fellow. now an Honorary Fellow. The same is true of her husband David Cannadine before. You're completely right, St John's College is structured because it has more content. Equally, yes Joan of Arc does has images aligned left, that's fine, but not left and right surrounding the same paragraph. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not responsible for the placing of the two images on the left and the right. Considering the content (and lack of it), I think that the placing of the images was a good idea, whoever thought of it. Trinity College, Cambridge does the same in many places. There were many errors in the classification of Christ's alumni both here and on Commons. Anne McLaren was a Fellow Commoner, etc, etc. Niall Ferguson was a Fellow, not an alumnus. The lack of any mention of Finch & Baines in the article was surprising, as historic benefactors of Christ's College. Simon Schama is an honorary fellow of Christ's College, but where is that to be found on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schoenflies problem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Planar Riemann surface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connected component (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Differential forms on a Riemann surface (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Holomorphic

Hodge dual (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Holomorphic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make major changes to the infobox without discussing them on the talk page. That map was extensively researched and is more useful than an image without any context or reference. -- Veggies (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It have discussed the infobox image on the talk page. There were previously two images in the infobox. An non-free image was uploaded before to illustrate the promenade des Anglais; it was immediately above the map. The image showed a night shot of the white heavy goods vehicle (poids-lourd) parked on the promenade des Anglais. It seems to have been deleted on Commons. The truck was finally halted next to the Palais de la Méditerranée on the promenade des Anglais, so this night shot seemed appropriate. The map showing the route taken by the truck was not removed as far as I am aware (unless I made an error). The images in the French article also seem to be having a problem, perhaps due to deliberate vandalism on Commons. One of them, also a non-free image, became a large black rectangle for a while.Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete this "Bouhlel had not left any public declaration of his motives, and no indications were found to connect the attack to extremist groups" ? Have you found any public declaration of his motives? Or maybe proof that he is connected to extremist groups? Amin wordie (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my edit summary and use the article talk page. That is what it's for. User talk pages are not for discussions about articles. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see he did it. Doing it with an iPad is no fun due to copy paste issues. On my PC I have a program which saves all clips, and of course copy paste is easier on a PC. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Differential forms on a Riemann surface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distribution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, I initially removed similar content for the same reason, but I'm not sure it actually is a BLP vio, given that he isn't mentioned by name either in the article or the source. Probably should address there on talk where there is an ongoing discussion about the material. TimothyJosephWood 19:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a specific individual and the 73-year-old will doubtless be identified sooner or later, knowing the gutter press. It could destroy his life. So yes, there are BLP concerns. On the other hand, a number of public statements have been made about Lahouaiej-Bouhlel by the Procureur de Paris, François Molins. He was briefly on the TV while I composed this. The official investigator's views on the data retrieved from Lahouaiej-Bouhlel's mobile phone or home computer are very useful. Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should take this to the talk for the benefit of other involved editors . TimothyJosephWood 21:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to template you, and I don't think I need to say this, but you are riding the line of WP:3RR on 2016 Nice attack. TimothyJosephWood 01:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All explained on the article talk page. I added brand new content which you immediately reverted. Meanwhile others have put it back in the article almost exactly as I devised it. They read the careful explanations I wrote on the talk page and took time to understand them. You might have been able to report me on some noticeboard if my new content had been outrageous, misrepresented the sources or had been poor quality. But it wasn't. And I didn't attempt to reinsert it. On the other hand you used a French video as a source when you had absolutely no clue what it was about. It was one of the saddest videos I have ever seen. Not because of the images, but what people said. Were you even vaguely aware what it was about? Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the issue of overciting in the suspects section: multiple cites with 4-6 citations. I figure you added most of them so you may be the best person to trim them. But they need to be trimmed down to about three at most, especially for ones supporting uncontroversial claims, preferably with an English language citation for at least one cite for each as discussed previously. TimothyJosephWood 22:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This can be done but not immediately. English language sources are not very good. The whole paragraph is based on one briefing in French, which is available on a single video in French on the VDF reference. The video is useful for establishing the correct tone in which an English version should be written; once an English paraphrase/translation has been made, I usually listen to the original to check the accuracy and tone of the translation. Sorting out which terms are legal terms was sometimes not so obvious. There's no particular rush, so I might sort it out over the weekend. Mathsci (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm only nitpicking these little things because I think the article could be good candidate for WP:GA. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the dust has settled. Aren't there missing details about one of the suspects turning himself in to the police? Mathsci (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which censor an article will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note WP:3rr, but I believe you are aware of that. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erlbaeko:

1. One reversion is not an edit war.
2. This has nothing to do with censorship.
3. A level three warning for a single revert is nonsense, in addition to WP:DTTR.
4. The archived discussion establishes no consesnsus, and it is a four comment thread of you saying you think there should be a timeline, and EGF basically disagreeing with you.
5. The timeline being problematic has already been discussion variously on the talk, which you need to engage in before you start throwing temper tantrums.

So to summarize, this warning is fairly disruptive in fairly many ways, and you need to cool your jets before you get a template of your own. TimothyJosephWood 16:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Erlbaeko. Please use the talk page of the article, where the problems are discussed. Making statements about WP:CENSORED would be fine if you were not engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I wrote WP:BRD for a reason. It means "discuss", so please do so. Meanwhile I am still working hard to verify all the details in the attack section using both French and English language sources. That's why the "in use" flag is up. It could take hours. Please don't leave bogus messages like this again. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it is ok then, since I haven't added OR or SYNTH to the article, but ok, that CENSORED template may have been a little hasty. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [2] I have asked you to get consensus before you remove that information. Please, self-revert or I will report you. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information was out of date and not backed up by sources. It didn't help the reader. You suggested I could make improvements in your last edits to the article talk page. I said that an annotated map was more useful and that is what I have created. You did not reply there. Although police investigators will have established precise timings, those are not publicly available, so we can only give approximate timings. Selectively using dribs and drabs released by the Prosecutor to make conjectures about minute-by-minute timings is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I think the map is helpful and only gives very rough timings for the beginning and the end of the attack. Your timeline strayed outside the attack with cherry picked synthesis. The Reuters timeline has been superseded by two press conferences of Prosecutor Molins. Why feed readers outdated information from over a week ago? The map is far more helpful and is about the actual period of the attack. Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The material you removed was attributed to reliable, published sources. All of it. It was not OR or SYNT. You can NOT remove that information without consensus. You have 10 min to self-revert. Please, do so. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article talk page. I thought that, in the absence of images, the map was a very good way of conveying information. That is why I created it. Your timeline had little or no intersection with the content of the attack section. It also contained outdated (15-17 July), erroneous (SMS) and misleading (accomplices known) statements, written as if they were some kind of "scoop". But wikipedia is not about scoops. Please use the article talk page. Mathsci (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the talk page, but you don't listen. From WP:CON, Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Again, you need consensus to remove sourced material. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time is up. Sorry. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: In the UK I have had excellent Jamaican goat, what, no Rice and peas or Ackee and saltfish or patties? My house, (though not my current abode) is in NW10. Pincrete (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to you! Yes I have been working for several years now (but just back after nearly two years because I could not stand arguing on WP all the time) on works by Handel on WP.Thank you for adding the articles on Op 4, 6 and 7! I have worked a little on the "Guilio Cesare" article but that one was in pretty good shape while there were a lot of other articles on Handel operas and oratorios that were terrible and there are quite a few significant works (secular cantatas, for example) that still don't have articles at all. I really notice that when there is a high profile performance of a Handel piece at for instance English National Opera or Carnegie Hall, views of the articles here on WP on the piece being performed go way way up, there are obviously hundreds of people who turn to WP for information on the opera or other piece they are going to see, or just people who have heard the work is to be performed and are curious, so it seems important to provide high quality information for them. I have been working on "Ariodante" a lot in the last few days because Joyce di Donato is doing a world concert tour of that piece next year. With regard to "V'adoro pupille" from Giulio Cesare, the article right now says " This number calls for two orchestras: one is a small group to play behind the scene with strings with sordino, oboe, tiorba, harp, bassoons and viola da gamba concertante."You are very welcome, of course, to expand it! Once I get "Ariodante" into shape I will have another look at that aricle. Viva il caro Sassone! Best wishes Smeat75 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have the obvious six favourite operas (Rodelinda, Tamerlano, Giulio Cesare, Orlando, Alcina, Ariodante). I've stayed away from these, just as I've only edited only one or two Bach cantatas. But it would be a nice change describing Cleopatra's arias as she morphs from sex kitten into tragic heroine (using Dean of course). It was a pleasure bumping into another Handelian. Mathsci (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked you. My reasoning is explained in more detail at WP:ANI#User Mathsci and all the things subsection "indef blocked". Fram (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can there be a COPYVIO if I asked for advice from Moonriddengirl, Diannaa and Dougweller? I asked them how to give translations of bits of articles in French for the benefit of others. They advised me how to explain the content of French articles on English wikipedia. I followed their advice twice with a short translation and a longer paraphrase.Talk:2016_Nice_attack#Recent_developments:_Sandra_Bertin.27s_chronology_and_2_further_arrests

Here are the requests.[3] and User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Translations

Here is what Dianna told me, which I followed. [4] [5] In the blurry area of translations, all I could think of doing is asking the advice of the main wikipedia copyright experts.

They gave it to me and I followed it:

1. in adding a very short summary that Dianna said was OK[6]
2. in creating the paraphrased summary linked above.

I don't know what else Fram thought I could do. Perhaps he or she can explain here. Possibly they were unaware of this. It was stated quite clearly at WP:ANI several times.

The diffs produced on User talk:Iridescent were just a collection of diffs with no comments or explanations. Iridescent seemed to be suggesting that I was bluffing about my evidence, so I produced the preliminary uncommented diffs. Iridescent then provided his own commentary with no knowledge of parallel edits to the article or elsewhere. I have never seen an administrator, arbitrator or ex-arbitrator do something like that before.

Fram apparently did not read my commentary on ANI. It was added here, as requested, with 12 diffs and an explanation.[7] Fram refers to only 3 diffs at ANI, so had not read the response there where I gave 12 diffs with a detailed explanation.

The preliminary annotated diffs were saved in my sandbox. Although I deleted them, they are visible in the history. Iridiscent doubted that I had prepared diffs even though I had said they were being gathered in unsaved edits to my sandbox. I saved them later to preserve the record.

I apologised to Timothyjosephwood for criticising his level of French when he tried to translate. I understand that he has had no formal training in French, but nevertheless I should have found a better way of expressing myself without causing offence.

Before Fram blocked me, I had said quite clearly that I had voluntarily stopped editing the article. I have done a similar thing before in 2010 as a result of discussions with Newyorkbrad and Roger Davies. I kept to my promise. This article was a not a controversial article like Race and intelligence, just a poorly sourced article.

I was not blocked for poor editing. I was blocked for posting a captioned image, with the possibility of appealing after 6 months. I made an appeal two and half years later. Only in death stated falsely that I had engaged in off-wiki harassment. That is false. The arbitration committee is aware of those allegations as I have emailed Casliber and Dougweller about this and sought help and advice from the arbitration committee. I also asked for advice from MastCell. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the diffs you posted at ANI and those you posted at Iridescents page, and none supported your attacks (not the one you apologiesd for, all the others). You were asked multiple times to provide these diffs, only very reluctantly did so (instead posting walls of text without relevance to the discussion), and when you finally provided them, they didn't support your attacks. As for the copyvio, you were reinserting it twice [8][9] (once with the rather chilling edit summary "restore paraopharse - have requested an arbitrator to intervene") after it had been removed as a copyvio and after you had started the discussion at user talk pages and hadn't received a single positive reply. Edit warring to include a suspected copyvio when you aren't sure about the policy is very bad practice (and not knowing that a translation is a copyvio is just strange). Fram (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was resolved on 26 July, 8 days ago. The arbitrator was Dougweller and intervene meant that his advice had been asked. He did not know immediately when I asked him,[10] (it's not a problem I've had before) so pinged Diannaa and also referred me to Moonriddengirl. I had already asked her by then. And then Diannaa gave me advice. This is a cloudy area. It is quite clear that on several occasions Timothyjosephwood insisted that WP:NOENG disallowed French sources and that is mentioned in the long explanation. It is in the diffs. But only when there were no English sources were French sources used. Almost always I supplied a sources from BBC News or other British broadsheets. Numerous editors commented that that was OK. Crow for example explained that on Moonriddengirl's talk page when I asked her a supplementary question about using French sources.[11] Likewise when Timothyjosephwood made his statements about WP:NOENG, EvergreenFir commented about French sources.[12] Pincrete made the same point at ANI[13] and has done so elsewhere.

As for Timothyjosephwood, on multiple occasions he mentioned not using French sources.

• [14] reference in Le Parisien: "this is the English Wikipedia, and we should probably prefer English sources, so that content can be verified by readers, who are presumably here because they speak English"
• [15] "Regardless, per WP:NONENG, if we have an English source that covers the claim just as well, we should use it instead of a non-English source."
• [16] "The source is currently cited once, for a single sentence, for which there are ample English sources that just as well support the content. What you could hypothetically write with the French article is irrelevant. Guidance in WP:V is clear: use an English source when one is available." In this Pincrete has written, "Speaking from experience of 'Thalys' attack, the best sources were often French and I can vouch for the fact that Mathsci, has a good eye for the nuances of French (officialese/colloquial etc), and he errs on the right side of cautious when translating." This refers "unbridled sex life" which Timothyjosephwolf took to include bisexual partners.
• [17] "Alright, well, it seems like this conversation has about a 0% chance of going anywhere productive, and seems at this point to be only tangentially related to article improvement. I'm going to add the English sources back into the article, because that's what WP:V tells us to do, and there's been no policy driven argument to the contrary. If Mathsi wants to edit war over including more sources I'd say that's a pretty clear indication this is a personal issue and not about improving the article. " (Calls adding supplementary sources "edit-warring")
• [18] "So the only way to proceed in-line with policy as far as I can tell, is for non-French speakers to rely, as best they can, on machine translation, use fair-use editor translations in the article only, and provide only what French language content is necessary so as to help the article be verifiable. As a note to all involved, since this appears to have come up, WP:NOENG does allow the use of non-English sources, so long as equal-quality English sources are not available. The same policy also suggests that editor translations be accompanies by the original passage translated, which we may need to remedy if we have not done this consistently in the article. This means that probably all of the direct quotes from the main investigator need to have footnotes attached with the original French."

On the other hand, although he wrote this often on the talk page, it was not reflected in his edits to the article; in the article I was already doing what he wanted (providing the French original in a footnote in the case of a quote); and if he saw useful neutral content added he raised no objection. I had to puzzle out a way of explaining the new CCTV chronology source on the article talk page to non-French speakers. There was and is no English language source for that. It was one of the single most important sources for the article. Mathsci (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually when I left that post about 'Thalys', I was mixing Mathsci up with another editor with a similar name, but I stand by the thought. Arguments about Eng is good Fr is bad (or vice versa) are pointless, we should use Eng, EXCEPT when the Fr is better, more up to date etc. I endorse that UK and US (and Indian English) sources have generally been poorer and Eng sources have simply lost interest after Nice left the front page and have therefore not updated. Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above (which I had read before the block was implemented) do even remotely resemble "a great antipathy to sources in the French press", "[a lack of] sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media", "a negative and condescending attitude to French sources", "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources", "discriminates against editors who know French", which are attacks you made and which you were repeatedly asked to back up or retract. Fram (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources" is what he argued on the talk page. It was a description of what he was doing, not a personal attack. Timothyjosephwood was the only person using WP:NOENG to argue against French sources. He referred to translation by editors as "slavish". He said that the "English wikipedia" was for "English speakers" and that therefore they should be able to check the sources when they read the articles (true for editors but not necessarily readers). He wrote that "machine translations" were fine: google translate. He equated French law on terrorism to US or UK law. The first diff that I found was this.[19] It is a strange comment on the culture of France and its former colonies in North Africa.

On the other hand these were comments on what he had written in edits on the talk page. They were certainly not about his personal qualities, and again I apologise for giving that impression and any possible offence. He went out of his way to find VOA images of tributes in Nice, for which I thanked him. It was very tough to find any images and he was one of the very few both to try and to succeed on any wikipedia, including fr.wikipedia.org. Mathsci (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That diff doesn't seem to contain any comment on the culture of France or their former North African colonies (like Algeria). " The Muslim issue is only a debate because this is set against the historical backdrop of the current issues in the Middle East. That makes the inclusion a side-ways commentary of geopolitics and not a neutral reporting of the facts" argues against highlighting Muslim victims, as that seems to be for him a NPOV / Undue emphasis. How is this "a strange comment on the culture of France"? Fram (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cities in the South of France, like Marseille, Toulon and Nice, have a very large Muslim population including those "sans papiers". There is a porous border because of the ferry links to North Africa and the former colonies. The problems of France have nothing to do with the Middle East. There is a sizeable Lebanese population but they can be Christian. Mormons seen in France are almost invariably US missionaries in pairs wearing their white shirts and black badges. It is a misunderstanding of life in cities in Mediterranean France. Where I lived the Arab population was mostly Algerian and Moroccan. I mixed with them a little in Aix. I also met pieds noir who had grown up in Tunisia before they were repatriated to France. So not the Middle East but North Africa. Two quite different things. I lived in Aix for 15 years. Mathsci (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know all that (apart from your personal history). But most of the terrorist attacks are related to "the current issues in the Middle East" (in reality, or by the comments afterwards by politicians and the like). It's relatively logical that there will be Christians, Muslims, atheists, ... among the victims at such a general audience, family gathering (with also a lot of tourists). So how is his comment that emphasizing the muslim victims may be a NPOV issue a "strange comment on French culture"? He isn't arguing to include all groups but the muslims, he also isn't blaming the French muslims as a group for the attacks, he isn't blaming French culture or history for the attacks, he ... well, I have no idea what he has done with that comment that you have a problem with, but it seems to me, also looking at all those other diffs, that you take perfectly innocuous, policy-based or otherwise fairly neutral and constructive comments and turn them into some anti-French attacks left, right and centre. many editors by now have told you that they see no problem at all with the comments you react so heavily against, and that the problem is solely or at least mostly your attacks and batteground behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Muslim dead is mentioned in the article in the victim section. I don't regard the statement there as POV-pushing. It reflects the size of the local population. I did not edit that part. Instead I added details after that about the official list of victims; and the tribute to them on the Hotel de Ville. There has been a backlash against Muslims after the attack. Some of it has been discussed in the English speaking press. The daughter of a Muslim, one of the first fatalities, was abused when she went to visit the spot where her mother was killed. She was told "That's one less." That's what I mean by life and culture in France. Perhaps at some later date other facts will come out, but not so far. Mathsci (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An example of faulty or incomplete information resulting from not using French sources

Although I have said that I will no longer edit 2016 Nice attack and its talk page, I just want to point out another new example of how US or UK sources can be unreliable or inadequate for writing about this kind of disaster article in a foreign country. Wikipedian editors are puzzling amongst themselves how the final shooting took place. They are looking at amateur videos and images taken by witnesses.

But in fact one of the three national police officers—two men and a woman—from the Brigade spécialisée de terrain (BST) gave a complete verbal account of the final shooting which was obtained by Agence France-Presse and published widely in French news media on 17 July (ladepeche, normandie-actu, lejdd, midilibre, la-croix). The officer, a male, explains that the three of them were stationed at the intersection with Avenue de Verdun, ahead of the truck at the beginning of the Quai des Etats-Unis. As people were going back home after the firework display, they got two alert calls and ran down the Promenade des Anglais until they came face to face with the truck. The officer moved on to the central divide while the other two took cover behind a palm tree. The precise exchange of gunfire is described. The driver's head was initially visible; he then slid down onto the seats and reappeared in the passenger seat. After further police shots, his head fell back on to the window frame on the passenger side. At that stage the officer was not sure whether the driver had been killed. 20 or more shots were fired by the 3 police officers, until they heard the call to cease firing. The driver was found dead in the passenger seat.

This is a paraphrase, omitting some detail (shots initially fired by the driver, etc), but indicates that being open to French sources can only improve the article. None of this information can be found in UK or US sources. Finding this information required searching using French search terms not English. In fact, like many sources, I found these by accident! I have said that I have relinquished editing the article. This was just an exercise. The moral is clear, however, for all editors wanting to write an accurate article without indulging in original research: look for good sources and, in the case of a disaster in country X, expect more detailed information to be available in the language of country X. It also takes time for information to seep out. This also gives an explanation of why there were so many errors in the article before it was rejigged using the French wikipedia article. It is a complete myth that this information is out there in some UK or US source. I would love the BBC, the Guardian or the Telegraph to have reported it, but they didn't. AFP is available to them, but in French. Mathsci (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you at the FAC of Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161, for which you kindly supplied the lead image. Sad that you can't reply there. If you have any more information about Bach's writing - as the reviewer requested - please share it here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: a specific request for a US license tag has been raised in the FAC. Can you help? I have no idea what it means. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC) I found help for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On commons the date of the autograph manuscript was clearly marked in date. Mathsci (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

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

---

Blocking administrator: Fram (talk)

Reviewing administrator: Bishonen | talk 14:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request reason:

The blocking administrator has given only vague reasons for the block which include copyvio issues and borderline personal attacks. I would like my request to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Copyvio issues concerning user translations on article talk pages were resolved over a week ago with the help of Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and Diannaa. When asked, like me, Dougweller was not certain about how to proceed in describing a foreign language source on an article talk page. Diannaa explained that it could be done either through a brief straight translation, as permitted by copyright; or by a translated paraphrase, as if for a wikipedia article. I have apologised to Timothyjosephwood several times for the comments I made during discussions of foreign language sources and translations from a foreign language. I regret if I caused him any distress and unequivocally retract any personal statements I might have made about him. I have no history of making copvios or personal attacks. This is the first time I have edited an article on a news-related event as it unfolded. At ANI I also voluntarily committed myself to ceasing editing 2016 Nice attack or its talk page indefinitely; the advantages of my knowledge of France and the French language at this point are outweighed by the disadvantages, including my emotional investment in the subject matter itself (a little too close to home). I am making this unblock request so that I can resume my pre-Bastille-Day parallel editing of articles on baroque music (Orgelbüchlein and multiple related articles on Latin and German hymnology) and mathematics (Uniformization theorem, Planar Riemann surface, Differential forms on a Riemann surface).

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=The blocking administrator has given only vague reasons for the block which include copyvio issues and borderline personal attacks. I would like my request to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Copyvio issues concerning user translations on article talk pages were resolved over a week ago with the help of Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and Diannaa. When asked, like me, Dougweller was not certain about how to proceed in describing a foreign language source on an article talk page. Diannaa explained that it could be done either through a brief straight translation, as permitted by copyright; or by a translated paraphrase, as if for a wikipedia article. I have apologised to Timothyjosephwood several times for the comments I made during discussions of foreign language sources and translations from a foreign language. I regret if I caused him any distress and unequivocally retract any personal statements I might have made about him. I have no history of making copvios or personal attacks. This is the first time I have edited an article on a news-related event as it unfolded. At ANI I also voluntarily committed myself to ceasing editing 2016 Nice attack or its talk page indefinitely; the advantages of my knowledge of France and the French language at this point are outweighed by the disadvantages, including my emotional investment in the subject matter itself (a little too close to home). I am making this unblock request so that I can resume my pre-Bastille-Day parallel editing of articles on baroque music (Orgelbüchlein and multiple related articles on Latin and German hymnology) and mathematics (Uniformization theorem, Planar Riemann surface, Differential forms on a Riemann surface).|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed|1=The blocking administrator has given only vague reasons for the block which include copyvio issues and borderline personal attacks. I would like my request to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Copyvio issues concerning user translations on article talk pages were resolved over a week ago with the help of Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and Diannaa. When asked, like me, Dougweller was not certain about how to proceed in describing a foreign language source on an article talk page. Diannaa explained that it could be done either through a brief straight translation, as permitted by copyright; or by a translated paraphrase, as if for a wikipedia article. I have apologised to Timothyjosephwood several times for the comments I made during discussions of foreign language sources and translations from a foreign language. I regret if I caused him any distress and unequivocally retract any personal statements I might have made about him. I have no history of making copvios or personal attacks. This is the first time I have edited an article on a news-related event as it unfolded. At ANI I also voluntarily committed myself to ceasing editing 2016 Nice attack or its talk page indefinitely; the advantages of my knowledge of France and the French language at this point are outweighed by the disadvantages, including my emotional investment in the subject matter itself (a little too close to home). I am making this unblock request so that I can resume my pre-Bastille-Day parallel editing of articles on baroque music (Orgelbüchlein and multiple related articles on Latin and German hymnology) and mathematics (Uniformization theorem, Planar Riemann surface, Differential forms on a Riemann surface).|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

The blocking admin provided a response at ANI here. Note that the voluntary cessation of editing was just above, approximately a half hour prior. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm an uninvolved admin. Hi, Mathsci. It seems the Nice attack was an issue that touched you deeply; you had a lot of knowledge about it, but also perhaps too much investment in it to discuss calmly. Well, you say so yourself above. To not edit the article going forward seems a good solution to that particular issue. But you have been in trouble before for the way you interact with other editors. Some of those were indeed cases where you were right about the underlying issues, as proven by your opponents since being indeffed. But having been on Wikipedia so long as you have, I'm sure you're painfully aware of how highly the system values civility. So what would you do differently if you were unblocked? Are you thinking of sticking to uncontroversial articles altogether? Obviously we would be very glad to still have your editing on baroque music and mathematics. Mind you, if I sound like I personally advise avoiding all subjects that can be argued about, I don't; I think it would be a loss to Wikipedia. But you know yourself a lot better than I do; what are your thoughts on editing controversial articles going forward? Do you think you'd be able to avoid getting in the same trouble? Bishonen | talk 08:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • User:Bishonen, thanks for the reply. I apologise in advance for giving a detailed and unfortunately lengthy reply.

ARBR&I: The only problems with articles were in 2010 on Race and intelligence and the associated article I created, "History of the race and intelligence controversy", on the suggestion of Steve Rubenstein (stable since its creation): those edits were made from April-July 2010. There have been no problems on other articles or their talk pages; and my meticulous editing was mentioned by arbitrators in WP:ARBR&I. In the ARBR&I case itself, after discussions with User:Newyorkbrad, I voluntarily withdrew from editing anything related to R&I and have stuck to that ever since. Sanctions were lifted in December 2010. They were reimposed after a wikipedia email from Courcelles for unknown reasons. There have been plenty of problems related to meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry following WP:ARBR&I. Having been given the green light by arbitrators, I have consistently helped arbitrators/checkusers identify sockpuppets, even while blocked. Mainly that involved possible Mikemikev socks: generally I can tell whether they are socks or not, from their talk page language and topic fixations.

Echigo mole: Since 2009 there was intensive hounding by User:Echigo mole and his 300 odd sockpuppets which lasted until May 2013, when he tired of his hounding and declared a partial list (100+) of undisclosed/unused sock accounts. His editing affected almost every article I wrote, because he trolled there. He also trolled on arbcom pages and a motion about restoring his edits was passed by arbcom in 2012. Echigo mole/A.K.Nole's intention was to create as many problems for me as possible: he posted on WikiProject Mathematics and anywhere else he could stir up trouble by trolling (Reginald of Durham was an example, when I was writing content related to St Cuthbert and early Christian saints in Britain; he stayed away from Godric of Finchale and Guthlac of Crowland).

Apart from the R&I case and Echigo mole-generated disruption, there has been no prior history of editing problems on articles or article talk pages.

Nice attack: In the case of 2016 Nice attack, French editors were active on fr.wikipedia.org not on en.wikipedia.org. That is completely understandable. A news article about confused events where sources are only corrected a week or two after the event is tricky to write. Those corrections and clarifications have only appeared when the people involved were interviewed or made announcements (witnesses, heroes who engaged with the driver, national police officers who "neutralised" him, the police officer in charge of CCTV footage, the French prosecutor). Mostly that has been in French sources, since these reports are not considered newsworthy outside France beyond brief comments. I was the main editor who detected those problems and took a lot of time finding sources that were reliable. I just looked at fr:Attentat du 14 juillet 2016 à Nice and noticed a huge divergence between the content written by French editors and the article here. No POV or BATTLEGROUND about that; just a statement about how some things can go wrong on en.wikipedia.org in cases like this. I was the only person to notice the problems and nobody has disagreed. I have pinpointed how the problem arose from whether news sources were updated/corrected or not.

Sorry for this long reply, but you mentioned my editing history. The arbcom ban was solely due to an inappropriate captioned image on my user page. (I have been informed that any confusion about that is being discussed by arbitrators at the moment.) I have also been subject to off-wiki harassment; the arbitration committee was fully aware of that since it was all outlined briefly in my unban request in March 2016. My ban could have been appealed in April 2014. Personal circumstances, including ongoing health problems, intervened in the interim. Thanks again for commenting, Mathsci (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, you have given a history that would probably be useful in some circumstances, but not really in response to my post, which I suppose you realise was an implicit offer to unblock iff you gave me some undertakings. ("I'm an uninvolved admin" is the code.) You haven't addressed my questions nor my observations at all. You changed the subject, and at the same time gave a bit of an impression you'll never let that stuff go. :-( You may be right in every single instance, but that's not the point. Please address what I asked. Personal suggestion: please don't be in a hurry, take a walk or sleep on it or something first. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Response to specific questions of User:Bishonen.

Q: I'm sure you're painfully aware of how highly the system values civility. So what would you do differently if you were unblocked?

A: I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills.

Q: Are you thinking of sticking to uncontroversial articles altogether?

A: Yes, of course. I have up until now avoided unfolding current events, as I have done in the past. They are not encyclopedic content (perhaps in 5 years times, when experts have written about them, they might be). I edited this one first of all because I could help with images and maps, given my knowledge of the region. This was not a controversial article, however, just an article that was hard to source (for the reasons I've explained above). Almost exclusively I have edited or created neutral and anodyne articles where no other editors are active. For a long time I watched (and still watch) Europe, Marseille and Aix-en-Provence. I don't foresee editing articles on current events again. The mismatch with the French article was unfortunate but not of my creation.

Q: But you know yourself a lot better than I do; what are your thoughts on editing controversial articles going forward? Do you think you'd be able to avoid getting in the same trouble?

A: This was not a controversial article, just one with language problems. The sources were also upsetting—listening to interviews with French people as they recounted their harrowing experiences; these people could have been my neighbours. As I say I don't edit articles on controversial topics. When there are content problems that require expertise (knowledge of mathematics, knowledge of organ playing, knowledge of French) I would be careful to speak dispassionately about the problems and strenuously avoid belittling other editors. I would step away from the computer rather than post a hasty reply. Here is an example of a mathematical discussion from 2008 where I had different expertise from another editor and where this was resolved through civil discussion.Talk:Restricted_representation#Clifford_theory I normally am careful to remain civil and not loose my cool. I will take even more care in future. User:Pincrete's comments about my overreaction here are quite correct. I have taken on board his comments as to what was wrong with my interactions on the talk page of the article: less is more; and there is no need to belittle other editors.

I hope this answers all your questions, particularly the ones on civility issues. Thanks again for clarifying things, Mathsci (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of editors trying to write content using amateur cell phone videos as WP:RS. As explained above, perfectly good written sources exist which would avoid this WP:OR. That's the problem with the article: poor sourcing. Where's the "rolls eyes" icon? Mathsci (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I guess one wouldn't call the subject of 2016 Nice attack controversial, but a controversy about sourcing nevertheless developed. Theoretically, I suppose that could happen wrt baroque music as well, but it's far more likely with unfolding current events, naturally. You say you normally don't edit those, so I conclude you edited the Nice article precisely because you had strong feelings about it. I think you can see where I'm going: if you're impelled to edit a current events article, it's likely that you do feel strongly about it. So I suggest you consider simply staying away from them altogether. I know you say you don't "foresee" editing them, but something might turn up that you think is urgent. I'm not setting a voluntary self-ban from current events as a condition for unblocking; I don't think that would be fair; but please consider the risks. People will be watching you, some of them from pure motives. But you clearly have enemies as well, so please don't give them a handle.

Anyway, considering what you say in your first answer above ("I would be far more careful not to overreact," etc), I'm now going to have a word with Fram. (Please stop talking about 2016 Nice attack, in any venue. Look at Begoon's post. That's the impression it makes when you do. Impressions are important!) Bishonen | talk 14:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Point taken. Je me tais. Thank you again for your help and sorry that I did not answer your questions when you first asked them. I do appreciate your help. I initially edited this article to help with the images and that led me to look at the French article. I add images quite a lot; recently Richard III, Henry VI, Lady Margaret Beaufort, Eleanor Cobham, Duke Humfrey of Gloucester, Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset, Christ's College, Cambridge, St John's College, Cambridge, Hobson's Brook, René of Anjou, Walter of Durham, Painted Chamber, A solis ortus cardine, Talbot Shrewsbury Book, Elizabeth of York, Margaret of Anjou, etc. Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through my email archive, I found one from Iridescent sent on 6 July 2009 about postings of Grep on Wikipedia Review. It's easy to see now that Grep was A.K.Nole/Echigo mole (e.g. he drew attention to hoax articles on Letchworth and Spirella). Something I hadn't realised before, but obvious once noticed.Mathsci (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fram has now replied, saying that he still has concerns but also that if I feel your reassurances are reasonable enough to give you another chance, then I'm free to do so.[20] That, together with the discussion of my unblock proposal on ANI, is enough backing for me. I will unblock if you explicitly undertake to live up to your own statement higher up on this page about what you'd do if you were unblocked: "I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills." Also, please read the ANI unblocking discussion I have linked to and be aware that if there's a next block, it's highly likely to be a permanent community ban. If you agree to these conditions, please indicate it below. Bishonen | talk 15:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I reiterate everything in my unblock request, in particular the section in green that you have just quoted and highlighted, which was the most significant portion. As I also wrote in the request, I will not edit the 2016 Nice attack article and its talk page. Thanks again for your help and guidance. Mathsci (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll unblock in a minute. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Theorem (smooth Hodge–Weyl decomposition). If α is a smooth 1-form of compact support then α can be written uniquely as α = ω + da + *db with ω harmonic, square integrable and a, b smooth with square integrable exterior derivatives.

Corollary (Poisson equation). If Ω is a smooth 2-form of compact support with ∫_X Ω = 0, then Ω can be written as Ω = ∆f where f is a smooth function with df square integrable.

In fact, Ω can be written as Ω = dα with α a smooth 1-form of compact support (Donaldson, pages 70–71). Writing α = ω + da + *db, it follows that Ω = d*db = ∆b.

In the case of the simply connected Riemann surfaces C, D and S= C ∪ ∞, the Riemann surfaces are symmetric spaces G / K for the groups G = R², SL(2,R) and SU(2). The methods of group representation theory imply the operator ∆ is G-invariant, so that its fundamental solution is given by right convolution by a function on K \ G / K (see Helgason's Differential Geometry and Symmetric Spaces, 1962, pages 442-449). Thus Poisson's equation can be solved by an explicit integral formula, from which it is easy to verify directly that the solution tends to 0 at ∞. Donaldson proves this directly for simply connected surfaces and uses it to deduce the uniformization theorem.

In fact the function f in the corollary can always be chosen to vanish at ∞. This can be proved using the theory of the "Royden algebra," a commutative Banach algebra to which the spectral theory of Gelfand and Naimark can be applied (see Sario & Nakai, 1970, Chapter III). For a Riemann surface X, define ||f|| = ||f||_∞ + ||df||₂, an algebra norm on bounded smooth functions f with square integrable exterior derivative. The Royden algebra A is defined to be the Banach algebra completion. Elements of A can be realised concretely as Tonelli functions that are uniformly bounded and have finite Dirichlet norm. (A Tonelli function is a continuous function which is absolutely continuous on any smooth curve.) The spectrum X = Spec A is compact Hausdorff space X containing X as a dense open subset.

Let I be the closed ideal of A given by the norm closure of C^∞
_c(X). Let J ⊃ I be the closed ideal of functions in A which are limits of sequences f_n in the Dirchlet norm and uniformly on compacta. The Royden boundary is defined as X \ X, a compact Hausdorff space. It is the zero set of the ideal I. The harmonic boundary is defined to be the zero set of J. It is a closed subset of the Royden boundary with dense complement.