Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:38, 6 August 2007

• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive1
• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive2
• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive3
• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive4

Aside conversion regarding discussion on Talk:University of Michigan

I decided this portion of my response to the Talk:University of Michigan#bigoted vandalism discussion would probably be better placed here.

I know I can't speak for everyone that took part in this discussion last time, but I don't feel that we intended to deny that the bigotry you experience exists and apologize if it came off that way. I feel that (as I mentioned last time) you're hearing from the vocal minority of people that may call themselves "Michigan Fans." Consider this: It would be remiss of me to assume that everyone affiliated with the Ohio State University are bigots because of the number of vandalism attacks received on Misplaced Pages articles related to the University of Michigan and verbal attacks I have received from their so called "fans" over several years.

In addition, I do feel offended when I feel I am being called an idiot or bigot since they are very strong words. You may want to review WP:Etiquette which explains that using labels can put people on the defensive which makes discussion difficult. I would also highly recommend that you read WP:CIVIL since your last contribution to the discussion comes across as being uncivil.

Hopefully with the time off since the last discussion on this topic everyone will be more civil. --Terryfoster 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously it was not you that I was calling an idiot or a bigot. It was the person who vandalized the U of M disambiguation page.

More on this later...... Michael Hardy 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Michael, thanks for making my stub on dialectica spaces conform to wikipedia conventions and for stopping its speedy deletion, when it didn't conform. as you probably noticed I'm just learning the conventions, so apologies if here is not the place to say "thank you". Valeria.depaiva 15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

SF

Science Fiction. I'm working on becoming a pro writer, I work at an SF bookstore (in addition to doing freelance web dev, graphics, programming and journalism, according to my business card), and a large number of my friends are pros (and notable enough to be on wikipedia) so I've taken to shanghai-ing them at cons and social events for pics to release. :-) --Thespian 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction

An article that you have been involved in editing, Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction. Thank you.

That contentious circle business

The items you added are NOT metaphorical circles; they belong under either "artifacts" or "glyphs and symbols" depending on which sort they are. Something that has a circular shape and is included for that reason belongs under "artifacts" or "glyphs and symbols". When one speaks of Sigmund Freud's "inner circle" then that is a metaphorical circle; it does not have a physically circular shape. Michael Hardy 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Artifacts, glyphs and symbols may be renderings of metaphors by metaphorical extension. We simply have different working definitions and knowledge areas. Inclusion not exclusion is key. Extract from this 'category list' and inaugurate another specific mathematical list ensuring that the category heading specifically mentions mathematical exclusivity; then we will have no bone of contention. BTW... refer: Charles Sanders Peirce

Respectfully

B9 hummingbird hovering 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they may have metaphorical meaning, but their circular shape is not metaphorical; it's their actual physical shape. Michael Hardy 00:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I've rephrased the introduction to the article to read as follows:

This list of circle topics includes things related to the geometric shape, either abstractly, as in idealizations studied by geometers, or concretely in physical space. It does not include things like "inner circle" in which the word has no reference to the geometric shape.

Michael Hardy 00:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

To nail it within an inch of its life: I employed "metaphor" as conceptual metaphor. If we create a common ground, plane (mathematics), temenos, kshetra where all our dialogue could be accomodated and entertained, what would be the parameters and its quantification? Shall we keep the point in play and not push other teams off the field?

*chuckle*

B9 hummingbird hovering 00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical series

Is:

The sum of an infinite series a₀ + a₁ + a₂ + … is the limit of the sequence of partial sums

${\displaystyle S_{n}=a_{0}+a_{1}+a_{2}+\cdots +a_{n},}$

as n → ∞, if the partial sums converge to a finite value. If so, the series is said to converge; otherwise the series is said to diverge.

I had changed this, and you had undone the changes, perhaps editing my talk page would have been more helpful? I had changed this from two sentences to one. The first sentence is a defintion, the second starts with "If so". Consider these two sentences:

The result of 2+2 is 4. If so, great, otherwise...

I think it can only be made sense of if you are saying something about the framework in which we define things:

The result of 2+2 is 4. If so, we are not living in a totalitarian state, otherwise, you'd better hope they do it to Julia.

I believe it should read something like:

The sum.... as n → ∞. If the sum converges to a finite value, the series is said to converge, otherwise it is said to diverge.

If my understanding of the maths is incorrect, then it should read:

The sum.... as n → ∞, if the partial sums converge to a finite value. If the partial sums converge to a finite value, the series is said to converge, otherwise the series is said to diverge.

In this way the second sentence does not depend on the first sentence being true. Also note that I removed the ; and replaced with a ,

BananaFiend 09:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

The sum of an infinite series a₀ + a₁ + a₂ + … is the limit of the sequence of partial sums

${\displaystyle S_{n}=a_{0}+a_{1}+a_{2}+\cdots +a_{n},}$

as n → ∞, if the partial sums converge to a finite value, the series is said to converge; otherwise the series is said to diverge.

It said "A if B, C". Whether that meant

* A is true if B is true,

or

* if B is true then C is true

could not be discerned. So I changed it. Michael Hardy 14:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that it has now been changed. However, as can be seen, I did understand (I should also have split it into two sentences as I did above, though I disagree the meaning could not be discerned). Your comment was unwarranted, and as a respected editor I would hope that you would consider previous edits carefully. Except in cases of vandalism, insults when undoing cheapen wikipedia and discourage participation. BananaFiend 10:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I'm sorry? Your unwarranted hostility and assumption of bad faith are beyond measure. I closed the discussion merely because it was deleted, and passed no judgment on the article. I demand you to retract your blatantly false and deceptive statements regarding my involvement. —Kurykh 03:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am utterly sick of the incessant holier-than-thou attitude of illiterate crackpot vandals whose only purpose in life is to delete Misplaced Pages articles because they're unwilling to understand what they're about. This is such a case. When you saw that the article had been deleted improperly, other courses of action were open to you. Michael Hardy 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So it is my fault because my actions reflected reality? It is not my responsibility that the article was deleted. My closure was to only reflect the situation, not because it was done improperly. Perhaps you could have politely asked Sr13 or me to undelete the article because it was deleted by unusual means, but your initial (and still ongoing, for reasons unknown to all but you) incivility and personal attacks deserve widespread ridicule. —Kurykh 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion when some people are arguing in favor of keeping the article is clearly forbidden. The deletion was vandalism. It was not just "unusual" it was improper. If someone inserts the word "fuck" in a random location in the middle of an article, I could ask that person politely to revise it. If I describe it as "vandalism" you could then complain that by using that word I am uncivil and hostile. It's exactly parallel to the present situation. Michael Hardy 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not parallel by a wide margin. What you essentially did was bawl at me for doing a housekeeping task. Shameful. —Kurykh 03:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael, what Kurykh did was simply performing the formality of inserting the "close" tag (so that the discussion could be archived). The article was deleted by Sr13 more than half a day before, not by Kurykh. Perhaps you need a wiki-vacation or something. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was ongoing and should not have been archived. The deletion was an instance of something clearly forbidden; it was vandalism, not a good-faith edit. Michael Hardy 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion HAD been ongoing, a sufficient consensus HAD developed, and your wheel-warring, logic-chopping Wikilawyering, and objectively false characterization of what happened as "vandalism" makes me question your suitability to hold the admin bit. I've re-added the AFD tag and reopened the discussion, and in about half-a-day it'll comply with your over-legalistic interpretation of guidelines. If you have a reality- and/or policy-based objection, now might be the time to make it. Calton (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To say that a sufficient consensus had been reached is absurd nonsense. Michael Hardy 05:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's add "sputtering and hand-waving" to the list above.

Meantime, a math test, regarding the claims of this being improperly closed.:

• Opening of AFD: 14:53, July 26, 2007
• Deletion of article: 08:36, July 31, 2007

• Elapsed time: 4 days, 17 hours, 17 minutes
• Length of time this was "closed early": 6 hours, 53 minutes

• Number of "Delete" votes: 6
• Number of "Keep" votes: 1
• Actual improvements/changes to article during course of AFD:

• One addition of new factoid:

As I said, if you have actual reality- and/or policy-based objections, now might be the time to make them. --Calton | Talk 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) The debate has now run for several additional hours (it was only closed a few hours early to begin with, that's pretty routine, we usually don't measure them down to the minute), and you've reversed three closes thus far. I would very much like to remind you that wheel warring is very much disallowed and has gotten people desysopped, and really is bad practice. We have DRV if you disagree with the close, but just continually undeleting isn't the way to go. (As I do believe very strongly that wheel warring is harmful, I will not delete again, but would strongly encourage you not to reverse any additional closes.) Seraphimblade 05:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The way AfD is run needs to be scrapped completely and started over. I'm sick of the fact that the kind of people who hang around there are allowed to be considered good people. They're illiterate bullies. They hate people who have studied and who know something. There are lots of people there who just go around deleting stuff on the grounds that they're unwilling to be familiar with the subject matter. Most people on Misplaced Pages are the opposite of that. Michael Hardy 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You say I've reversed closes before. Be specific. I am not aware of such cases. I am aware of pointing out on previous occasions that those who spend most of their time on AfD are misanthropes not interested in anything.

Last I heard before today, the standard was seven days, not five. As for consensus, in the first place, the pool was minuscule, and in the second place, actually having heard of the subject matter before ought to count for something. Furthermore, it ought to be required to notify the relevant subject matter communities. That was not done. Michael Hardy 06:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard before today, the standard was seven days, not five - From the first two sentences of the Articles for Deletion page:

Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days , after which the deletion process proceeds based on Misplaced Pages community consensus.

It even says "up to", not "a minimum of". At this point, your batting average on application of policy, guidelines, and even ordinary facts is hovering around .000. Perhaps when you're in a hole, it's best to stop digging. --Calton | Talk 06:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, last I heard it said seven days, not five. That's a fact. I don't keep up with amendments to these sorts of things.

The system is badly broken. A good faith editor urging deletion would not have notified the relevant subject-matter communities. In this case it was voted on only by outsiders to the relevant fields. Michael Hardy 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

List of cicle topics

Hi Michael. A just did a major revert at List of circle topics, which appears to have overtaken an edit you were making at the same time. You have a long history with this article. Feel free to fix as you deem best. Sorry about that! I have also cleaned up the talk page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning on Wheel warring

Let me preface this by stating when I deleted the page, I had done so from viewing the AFD, I had not seen the AN/I thread, nor previous deletion history.

Your actions are clearly and undeniably a wheel war. You have restored a page that has overwhelming consensus to delete at AFD THREE TIMES simply because you believe the outcome should have been different. This is entirely unacceptable behavior for a sysop. Heaping abuse on "deletionists" is not an acceptable response when you dislike the outcome of an AFD. Perhaps you should question your own sense of righteousness here: the community obviously begs to differ. ⇒ SWATJester 06:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're the second person to make this "three times" assertion. Did you just copy it from the first? Why can't you be specific? Michael Hardy 06:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it is clear from the logs. You restored three times. Once at 22:46 August 5, Once at 01:21 august 6, and once at 01:35 August 6. ⇒ SWATJester 06:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this one today was not one with an overwhelming consensus to delete. This was one where the relevant subject-matter communities were never even notified.

Most people who opine on AfD are good people. Most people who edit Misplaced Pages are good people. Most people who hang around AfD all the time are bad people. Something in the system encourages that. AfD protocols need to get scrapped completely and replaced. Michael Hardy 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That isn't THREE occasions; it's one. I restored an improperly deleted article. AFTER someone OTHER THAN ME reopened the discussion, I restored it again because obviously the article needs to be there in order to get discussed. What are the other two articles you're referring to? Be specific. Michael Hardy 06:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I never once said 3 articles. I said the same article 3 times. It was not improperly deleted in the first place, but irregardless the venue for that is DRV, not unilateral undeletion. Then after it was deleted again, you restored, causing a wheel war. Then, after I deleted it (not having seen this) you restored again, wheel warring again, putting yourself in 3RR danger, and clearly being disruptive. The community obviously does not share your opinion of this article. You need to respect it. ⇒ SWATJester 06:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not the one who reopened the discussion; someone else was. Michael Hardy 06:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It should have gone to DRV, not been restored, not been reopened. ⇒ SWATJester 06:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring

You have been wheel warring over the deletion of Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. Kindly cut that out. We have discussion forums for that kind of thing. Specifically, if you dissent with a deletion, you can bring it up for review here. >Radiant< 11:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a set-up. Your initial statement is dishonest. The restoration of a deleted page and reopening of a closed discussion was proposed by persons other than me and agreed to by persons other than me at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents; the discussion was reopened on the AfD page by persons other than me; I handled that other aspect of it. Then those same people who agreed to it and participated in it accuse me of "wheel warring". That is grossly dishonest. Michael Hardy 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that you have been wheel warring is literal fact, as plain from the page deletion logs (and I note that in one case you didn't even bother to enter an undeletion summary). Reversing other admin actions without discussion is bad form. Doing it three times in a row is worse form. And in your attacks here you seem to be confusing me with those people who agreed and participated in "it". >Radiant< 16:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

IT WAS NOT WITHOUT DISCUSSION. I JUST TOLD YOU THAT. AND WHY ARE THE OTHERS WHO PROPOSED AND INITIATED THIS ACTION AND PARTICIPATED IN IT NOT LIKEWISE BEING TAKEN TO TASK BY YOU, WHEN THEY ARE JOINING MY ACCUSERS. THIS IS A SET-UP. Michael Hardy 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't call the kettle black. And no, this is not a conspiracy. >Radiant< 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, we have a place for that: it's called DRV. There is a section for temporary undeletions for discussion. You being an administrator for a significant length of time should have been aware of this. Not to mention the lack of good faith in accusing this as a "setup". Are the wikipedia policies now part of a conspiracy against you?⇒ SWATJester 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention when you restored MY deleted version, your argument falls flat: When I deleted it, it was because the AFD had ALREADY BEEN CLOSED by Seraphimblade as delete. The AFD was closed, there was no further discussion. You restored it but a minute or two later, without ANY discussion. THAT is the definition of a disruptive wheel war. ⇒ SWATJester 17:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael, could you cite with diffs to provide evidence to back up what you are claiming? Everything I read completely contradicts what you suggest. First of all, you undeleted the article with the comment:

1. 02:46, August 6, 2007 Michael Hardy (Talk | contribs) restored "Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture" (68 revision(s) restored: This was improperly deleted without discussion. The edit summary by user:Sr13 that said "after discussion" was dishonest.)

and then left a comment at at WP:AN/I a few minutes later

It was then reopened by Calton (talk · contribs) at 04:47, August 6, 2007 (diff), with the comment, "reopening AFD to deal with unilateral undeletion".

Only two people suggested (and one assented) at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents#Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture that the debate remain open .

The thing, you did, despite any attempt to say otherwise, undelete the article without discussion. Only after you posted to WP:AN/I did anyone suggest that the discussion be reopened (after which Calton reopened it). You wheel warred. You undid another administrators' action without consensus. You did not, however, reopen the AfD discussion. Do you deny this?

So, in other words, this recent comment of yours to WP:AN/I is absolutely false. Correct? Contrary to the comment,

"I did not restore the article until AFTER other persons proposed and agreed to reopening the discussion and one of them actually did reopen it"

a correct comment would be:

"I restored the article BEFORE other (three) persons agree to reopneing the discussion and one of them actually did reopen it"

Is this correct? If not, where was the discussion, and where are the diffs that verify the timeframe that you propose? --Iamunknown 18:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is what happened: After only three days of discussion, during which no people knowledgeable or interested in the topic had commented, since the relevant communities had never been notified per standard practice, someone decided that there should be what is called a "speedy deletion" while there was disagreement about whether to keep the article. I seem to recall that in fact only six people had commented, not one of whom was part of the informed community. "Speedying" such a thing is not proper---it is forbidden---and I restored the article. Then I complained at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboad/incidents]]. Someone proposed reopening and someone else agreed, and I think at least three people were in agreement, not including me, and one of them then DID reopen the discussion. Then someone else deleted the article again, inconsistently with that new consensus, so I restored it and am now accused of "wheel warring" while those others involved are not.

The usual practice involves notifying the relevant communities. That was not done. Very likely no one who is knowledgeable about or interested in the article's topic besides me has posted on the AfD page on this article.

I don't contribute to articles about how to do open heart surgery, unless it's things like spelling corrections, adding a link, conforming to style conventions, etc., because I know nothing about that subject. The fact that "anyone can edit" in no way means that "anyone SHOULD edit" when they don't know anything about the topic. But among those who spend all their time on the AfD page, it is customary to angrily demand that those who actually know something about a subject bow down and act like plantation slaves addressing their masters. That's wrong. Michael Hardy 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you take this article to deletion review as several people have suggested. Discussion there, on a page that is much higher-traffic than an individual AfD, will not only allow additional eyes to review the article, but provide a forum for your concerns that input from subject-field specialists should be sought when articles in fields such as mathematics are proposed for deletion. Both your concerns about the deletion process and views of the merits of this specific article can there be presented, free from an atmosphere where one of the major concerns raised is about the extraneous matter of your own admin actions. My own input on the DRV, if there is one, is likely going to be to overturn the deletion and either relist or keep the article. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was fine with reopening the AfD, and when it closed, that was it. I was not fine with you wheel-warring, and nor is anyone else. —Kurykh 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What you call my "wheel warring" was part of reopening the discussion. And the reopening never properly happened, since the notice to the relevant communities didn't get there until after it had been reclosed. Your use of the word "fine" was insincere and dishonest. It was fraud. Michael Hardy 20:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop framing AfD at your whim. There is no requirement to notify anyone or anything except the article itself. You're making stuff up. —Kurykh 20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And I have a life outside of AfD and deleted articles (and, for that matter, Misplaced Pages), so go to WP:DRV and air your grievances there instead of ranting at me for a perceived farcical injustice. —Kurykh 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether there is a requirement in AfD rules is a separate question. The subject matter makes it required by prudence, and it is normally and routinely done, and you first agreed to it, calling it "fine" (your word) and then acted as if it took you by surprise, calling it "desperate", as if you hadn't expected it and hadn't agreed to it. It was the proposed purpose of reopening and you called it "fine". Then you turned around and denied all that. And acquiesced in closing the thing again BEFORE the purpose of reopening could take effect. Michael Hardy 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused. It is not "normally and routinely done"; that would be a regurgitation of baseless assumptions. I said your canvassing was "desperate," so you're just building straw men. Implicitly calling me a hypocrite (an absurd suggestion by someone grasping at straws) does not bring you honor or sympathy, only ridicule and reprimand. —Kurykh 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed normally and routinely done when any of the articles in any of the subcategories of the mathematics category is on AfD. The purpose of reopening was so that it could be done in this case and you called that "fine". Then you renegged on that before the listings on those talk pages were even put there. Then you act as if you hadn't agreed to those listings and as if closing before they could be done was consistent with your word "fine". Even if you were right that it's not normally and routinely done, the fact is you first agreed to it, calling it "fine", and then renegged on that and acted as if you hadn't expected it and called it a sign of desperation, rather than the main point of the plan that you called "fine". Michael Hardy 21:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I already said that I called your canvassing (as shown with a link) as a desperate act. I will not repeat myself. Confusing and twisting the facts is your prerogative, but presenting them as truth is misleading and, frankly, stupid. The world doesn't work like "repeat a lie a thousand times and it will become truth." —Kurykh 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Stay away from my talk page until you get your facts straight. All future blind rantings on that page will be instantly reverted. You may return when you start making sense. —Kurykh 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You lie. You called my proposed action "fine" when it was proposed and "desperate" when it was actually done. Michael Hardy 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are continuing to misrepresent the situation. It was not speedily deleted. It was deleted as a snowball delete after an abbreviated AFD. That is considerably different than a speedy deletion. The speedy deletion has no review other than the deleting admin: it's just deleted on the spot. A snowball delete occurs when after review at AFD there is extreme clear consensus that the article will be deleted (i.e. it has not a snowballs chance in hell of staying).

So it was not, as you say, a speedy deletion, but EVEN IF IT WAS, THE PROPER ACTION WAS TO TAKE IT TO DRV, NOT TO WHEEL WAR. (caps for emphasis). I can't make it any clearer than that. You did the wrong thing, your explanations are not up to par, and you haven't said "look I screwed up, it won't happen again" but instead you're saying "No, I was right, policy is wrong, and I'm going to make up new policies to justify my actions". There is no part of AFD that says the appropriate wikiprojects have to be notified of a deletion. None whatsoever. It has NEVER been a policy as far as I can understand, certainly not in the past nearly 2 years that I've been around. Your representation of that as some sort of requirement, or some sort of reasoning that the deletion is invalid is absolutely incorrect, and has no basis in reality. I implore you, visit the main AFD page some time and read the deletion policies there. You won't find the one you're citing; it doesn't exist. ⇒ SWATJester 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

In an effort to bring some closure to this situation, I've started a DRV at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_6#Infinite_monkey_theorem_in_popular_culture. Since I'm in part representing your arguments, I invite you to clarify or add anything in case I missed something. Regards.--Chaser - T 22:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your language

I have made some suggestions above regarding how we can move forward with this particular deletion debate (in which I am inclined to support your position regarding the article) as well as addressing your suggestions for improving the deletion process. However, uncivil remarks such as calling another administrator a "liar" are not going to be even the slightest bit helpful. Please refrain from making any more comments of that nature again. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)