User talk:Airplaneman/Archive 41

Can you protect this article? The IP sock and disruptive editing continue after protection. TravelLover37 (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done for one month. Airplaneman ✈ 13:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

In closing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933#Ranze on pro wrestling articles you approved the "broadly construed" part of the nomination which KrakatoaKatie proposed.

Special:Diff/739337387 indicates confusion by one of the people who voted for the topic ban over whether it effects conversations I am already part of.

This makes it clear that your alleged consensus was not aware that they were voting to restrict all conversation. This was an aspect only elaborated upon when you handed out my sentence. KrakatoaKatie did not elaborate upon it when nominating me (thus WarMachine's confusion) so this and possibly other votes you tallied cannot necessarily be considered to be an informed consensus.

Special:Diff/739954487 relates to this concern. Crash has nominated a redirect I created (Extreme Giant) and only brought up the WWE.com reference I added for it, even though I aliased to 2 others in special:diff/738801626:

• "Extreme giant prevails" 20 August 2006
• "Team Cena topples the Extreme Giant" 26 Nov 2006
• "said the Extreme Giant" 8 Dec 2006

Prohibiting me from making these defenses of my redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 18 is allowing CrashUnderride's inaccuracies to go un-answered. As you can see, this falsehood has already generated positive votes from both CoffeeWithMarkets and LM2000 and WarMachineWildThing.

Given that you gave me a warning about enforcing a meaning for "broadly construed" which all voters were not aware of (evidence above) and given that you have already excluded Ryk72 from the consensus process, I think this is grounds for you to restrict the scope of this topic block in three respects to better reflect the consensus of the Wikipedia community:

1. limiting it to an area everyone agreed on, "professional wrestling" instead of "wrestling"
2. not limiting edits/creation of redirects unrelated to pro wrestling (there was no consensus to do this)
3. allowing me to take part in conversations I'm already a part of so I can defend my redirects on RfD

If I am not allowed to defend my Extreme Giant redirect then Crash's falsehoods will continue to go unquestioned. It appears people are allowed to participate in voting to delete redirects without being held accountable for not checking the claims of the nominator.

If this is deleted, then I am worried deletion of more of my redirects will be held against me in future consideration. "Oh look how many redirects we deleted" for example, even though it is being done so on clearly false reasoning, as you can see with Crash saying only ONE article on WWE.com says it when in fact THREE do, spaced months apart.

This is exactly the type of behavior which was overlooked in measuring the consensus, how claims being made about edits and sources are being taken at face value without investigation into their veracity. Ranze (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked Ranze for 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for protecting the Lotus Carlton article in the wake of last month's persistent vandalism. Unfortunately, more disruptive editors have returned. I suspect they're sockpuppets of Altimgamr or at least affiliated with the humans operating those accounts. I just wanted to alert you because we will likely need some more assistance soon. Thanks! --ColinMB (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@ColinMB: I've protected for another two months. Airplaneman ✈ 23:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please be advised that chritian bale is british / WELSH and not english .pembrokeshire is part of wales not england — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.11.201 (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Christian_Bale#Christian_Bales_obvious_nationality. Airplaneman ✈ 23:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (talk · contribs) 12:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• NVM I figured it out... ^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The article titled Games Unfriendly to Red/Green Colorblind (deficit) People obviously needed work, but to call it "patent nonsense" strikes me as patent nonsense. Can you elaborate on your reason for deleting it? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: You're right, G1 isn't a valid deletion reason in this case. That's a mistake on my part. If I were to evaluate the page today, I would encourage moving it to the draft space and try and assist the author with sourcing. The information covered may very well have a place as part of the color blindness article or as a standalone list. I've restored content to User:JimFoit/Games Unfriendly to Red/Green Colorblind (deficit) People and will notify the author shortly. Thanks for bringing this up. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 23:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: pinging tagger as well. Airplaneman ✈ 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Myrocarcassonne (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)== Lyapunov function ==

Hi Airplaneman, Why did you pp-protect the Lyapunov function content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrocarcassonne (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Myrocarcassonne: Please see here, here, and here. Airplaneman ✈ 18:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Airplaneman,

bender235, Boris Tsirelson, David Eppstein and I, we are all equal as Wikipedian contributors. But as to Lyapunov Function we are not equal. Why? Lyapunov function is a subject of Stability Theory, which, in its turn, is a branch of Nonlinear Dynamics in Mathematics. bender235 is even not a mathematician at all! Boris Tsirelson and David Eppstein are mathematicians but judging by their works they are not the experts on Nonlinear Dynamics and Stability Theory. I am the expert on Nonlinear Dynamics and Stability Theory. My expertise is proved with:

1.The corresponding publications

1.1 German National Library of Science and Technology - https://www.tib.eu/en/search/?tx_tibsearch_search%5Bquery%5D=person%3A(Sparavalo%2C%20M.%20K.)&tx_tibsearch_search%5Bcnt%5D=20&tx_tibsearch_search%5Bsearchspace%5D=tn&tx_tibsearch_search%5Bst%5D=ex

1.2 Springer-Verlag Publishing Company - http://link.springer.com/search?query=sparavalo&facet-discipline=%22Mathematics%22

1.3 China National Knowledge Infrastructure - http://scholar.cnki.net/result.aspx?q=%E4%BD%9C%E8%80%85%3A(M.K.+Sparavalo)

1.4 zbMATH, a major international reviewing service providing reviews and abstracts for articles in pure and applied mathematics, which editors are the European Mathematical Society (EMS), FIZ Karlsruhe, the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences - https://zbmath.org/authors/?s=0&q=sparavalo

2. Four awards for the innovative aerospace applications of the theoretical discoveries in Nonlinear Dynamics, Stability and Control from Soviet Union, Ukraine and France.

3. The letters of recommendation from prominent mathematicians and scientists in Nonlinear Dynamics, Stability, Control and Topology including the glowing one from the renowned mathematician Yurii Mitropolskiy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurii_Mitropolskiy , http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Mytropolsky.html

By the way, Yurii Mitropolskiy was awarded The Lyapunov Golden Medal for his works in Asymptotical Methods in Nonlinear Dynamics.

The deletion of my contribution, done without any preliminary discussions with me, and the following ban of me from editing Wikipedia articles can be without doubts interpreted as Wikipedia vandalism and the outrageous attempt to usurp the equal-for-all right to make contributions to Wikipedia in a typical communistic way.

What do you think now after reading my arguments?Myrocarcassonne (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You delete my reply and accuse others of being "communistic". You claim no preliminary discussion, but only after deleting my reply that linked you to attempts at resolving this editing dispute. Credentials do not equal consensus. This isn't Academia, it's Wikipedia. Sure, credentials could mean something, but they do not unilaterally override editorial consensus nor do they take precedence over encyclopedia policy. Needless to say, I find your argument to be invalid and disruptive. Airplaneman ✈ 06:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Airplaneman,

First, yesterday I sent you the email where I told you that accidentally I deleted your reply of "Please see ...", while I was trying to sign my first post-question to you following the Mlpearc's advice to sign the posts. I said: "Sorry for that." Have you not yet check your email box or is it one of your wiles to communicate?

Second, if you find my arguments invalid and disruptive please be so kind as to show where and why they are specifically invalid and disruptive. Don't just pin them down with a label of "invalid and disruptive".

Third, I'd like to talk about your understanding of the credentials. You compare them to consensus and link them to "precedence over encyclopedia policy". According to you "credentials could mean something". In this context your "something" looks like something insignificant. Here where we differ since for me the credentials of the author of any encyclopedic article is a pivotal point. My logic is as follows.

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Do you agree, yes or no?

2. The encyclopedic information must be reliable. Do you agree, yes or no?

3. The reliable encyclopedic information can come only from authoritative sources. Do you agree, yes or no?

4. The authority of the sources of information in any worthy encyclopedia can be proved by the credentials of the authors, first of all. Nor by consensus of the authors with doubtful credentials neither by encyclopedia policy. Because false information deserves nothing to be considered for use in any worthy encyclopedia. I mean "worthy" in the sense of "meant not for political propaganda". Do you agree, yes or no?

Am I mistaken? If yes, be so kind as to indicate the wrong point specifically in the chain of my reasoning.

P.S. Airplaneman,

The credentials of an author prove his/her competency. My point is that you considerably downplay the competency of the authors of Wikipedia articles saying "credentials could mean something". The factor of the competency is very important for Mathematics and Hard Sciences. How can the consensus between incompetent authors help their disagreement on the subject they do not understand? How can encyclopedia policy help a bunch of incompetent authors create a competent, intelligible and professionally adequate article in these branches? How can incompetent in some specific topic of Mathematics people decide what is right there and what is wrong? The common sense gives us the clear answer: No, it cannot and No, they cannot. That is why any editor who values his/her reputation will never say that my arguments are "invalid and disruptive". Myrocarcassonne (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I've unfortunately not received an email. I have also checked my spam folder. I'll certainly look into that.

I hope further discussion may take place at the following venue: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Breakthrough_on_Lyapunov_functions.3F.

I acknowledge and understand your four points, as anyone who has (or hasn't!) taken an elementary course in logic is able to. Yet, I believe they misunderstand Wikipedia. It is incredibly hard to verify credentials, and one of the double-edged swords that comes with an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that non-experts have a voice in editorial decisions. That is not to say that arguments made by more credentialed individuals are de facto discounted; rather, one cannot wave credentials around and expect immediate deference. For a more credential-centric project, see: Citizendium. Additionally, the arguments at the WikiProject Mathematics talk page explain, with basis in Wikipedia policy, why there were some problems with your edits. These are the problems that must be addressed, regardless of credentials. Airplaneman ✈ 19:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Airplaneman,

Are you serious? You propose me to discuss the topic of Lyapunov Function with the folks

1) who are not experts on Lyapunov Function;

2) who started “their so-called discussion” with me by destroying my work and debarring me from editing. Putting it bluntly, they gagged me and after it Bender235 was intended to “force me” (This is his exact expression) to talk (What is ludicrous after silencing me, isn't it!?) and do what they want. I call this attempt of violence "the communication rape”.

These people behave like communistic or fascistic barbarians, whose prime policy has always been to intentionally destroy any bit of the knowledge challenging their ideas and prevent the information inconvenient for them from the free dissemination among the public. But it is not a free world. It is a totalitarian one in the information sphere.

This is my personal opinion about what is going on with Lyapunov Function article and my contribution to it. Myrocarcassonne (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (talk · contribs) 04:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Try this: tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/index.php. It should break down edits in each namespace. Would prefer on-wiki communication for these sorts of things because I keep a separate email for Wikipedia and it's a little harder to log in and check my email for a short message like the one you sent. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 04:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been too hasty in blocking Seema Mustafa. I have only this minute left a message on another user's page, please read it here because exactly the same thing needs to be urged upon you. I hope you will reconsider and revert your hasty action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.186.110 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (talk · contribs) 05:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

How do I check out the amount of mainspace edits I have? ^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (talk · contribs) 08:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you protected Daegu International Airport, Gimpo International Airport, Muan International Airport, Cheongju International Airport, and Yangyang International Airport. There is a disruptive IP again separating domestic and international service per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Can you protect these articles again? Thanks! 97.85.118.142 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Looks like a long-term problem. All linked pages semiprotected for 3 months. Airplaneman ✈ 03:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

He has been blocked now for edit warring somewhere else; his reaction has been to claim that the block is unfair and that people are ganging up on him. He very obviously does not understand WP:CONSENSUS. I thought he should have been blocked earlier for edit warring on the half dozen articles about the serial comma. Wikipedia would be chaos if editors were given the idea that it is ok to stalk other editors for the purpose of starting edit wars with them at articles frequently edited by those other editors over a point of style. There should be a general rule, analogous to WP:CITEVAR and WP:RETAIN, and stronger than WP:BROKE, that says that if an article has an established style with respect to optional MOS items, infoboxes, etc., then new editors should not change that style without first establishing a consensus to do so on the Talk page. I know some excellent, highly productive editors who have left the project due to harassment over such style matters on articles that they spent hundreds of hours bringing to FA or GA level. I hope you will advise him not to try to change the style again when his block wears off, unless he first established a consensus to do so on the relevant Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Thanks for the note; this is an unfortunate turn of events. I agree that the block should stand. I had tried my best to de-escalate the situation and provide many chances to disengage, but alas…

I am very aware of the retirement of editors due to style disagreements that often become excessively vitriolic. Every time I encounter disagreements, I feel for the editors in question; more often than not, they're disagreeing because they really want to do what's best for the encyclopedia. Disagreements on style have seemed to me the most dangerous and damaging (re: infoboxes). I am especially pained when I encounter editor(s) who have left over these sorts of disagreements. Based on the type of editor that Wikipedia attracts (this includes me), I am not surprised that style is very important to so many who dedicate so much of their time here. I often wonder if these disagreements would ever reach this timbre in real life, face-to-face scenarios… most times I wonder this, the answer is no.

I think you've said your piece in this matter here; may I ask that you not interact with WWS further for the next two days, at least? I fear that further interaction will not accomplish anything positive. I will be sure to check back in 48 hours from now to speak with WWS. I learned of their overall helpful edits and enthusiasm through my watchlist and wish them nothing but the best. Hopefully I will be able to work with them to find some sort of resolution. Airplaneman ✈ 06:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in interacting with him ever again, but it depends on what he does, obviously. I never heard of him before, and if he does not go back to those articles, which are articles I have edited heavily for years, then I'm happy to never hear of him again. I think that if you want to help him, you don't need to wait two days and can try to explain WP:CONSENSUS to him asap [ADD:] whenever you think best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool; I don't have the time to adequately address policy issues right now, nor do I think more instruction, however well-meaning, will be beneficial at this time. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 06:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)