exo

This editor is an exopedian.

but only because the metapedians seem to be rather unfriendly. Oh well.

26,000+

This user has made more than 26,000 contributions to Wikipedia.

1,400+

This user has made more than 1,400 contributions to Wikipedia.

5,800+

This user has made more than 5,800 contributions to Wikipedia.

Interesting edits

I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004. I've made edits adding roughly 500 bytes or more to more than 500 articles in math and physics topics. The first 423 of them are listed at User:Linas/Articles. The list below, of more than 100 articles, were edits made anonymously. Some of these edits were made under different IP's, including Special:Contributions/99.153.64.179 and Special:Contributions/67.198.37.17 and Special:Contributions/162.204.250.21 - my IP address and geographical location changes from time to time.

1:

The first 24 edits were mostly under Special:Contributions/99.153.64.179

Probabilistic logic - Compact closed category - Pregroup grammar - Hom functor - Simply typed lambda calculus - Presheaf (category theory) - Powerset - Type theory - Dependent type - Universal quantification - Curry–Howard correspondence - Stability criterion - No-communication theorem - Quantum teleportation - No-teleportation theorem - No-cloning theorem - No-deleting theorem - Quantum information - Quantum operation - Dagger compact category - Quantum noise - Quantum amplifier - Optical phase space - Quantum finite automata

25:

These are mostly under the current IP addr.

Multiplication theorem - Valuation (logic) - Quantum finite automata - Quantum Turing machine - Affine Lie algebra - Dedekind eta function - Current algebra - Vertex operator algebra - Charge (physics) - Operator product expansion - Product (mathematics) - Blancmange curve - No-teleportation theorem - No-cloning theorem - Ladder operator - Huygens–Fresnel principle - Baire space (set theory) - Static spacetime - Mass - Vertical and horizontal bundles - Exterior covariant derivative - Gauge covariant derivative - Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state - Wigner's friend

121:

major rewrites

Of the above, I'm particularly proud the ones that were major rewrites or even complete rewrites, either doubling or tripling the size of the article - anyway changes where more than about 5K or 10K bytes were added. These are listed above but repeated here:

Vertical and horizontal bundles
Gauge covariant derivative
Bundle metric
Christoffel symbols
Lense–Thirring precession
Currying
Puppe sequence
Cofibration
Tensor algebra
Universal enveloping algebra
Metric connection, although, in hind-sight, almost all of that content should be merged to connection (vector bundle).
Fermi–Pasta–Ulam–Tsingou problem
Resonant interaction
Measure-preserving dynamical system
Three-wave equation
Hall word
Mixing (mathematics)

major rewrites that are hack jobs

Some major rewrites are just-plain-old hack jobs, without any particular elegance. Notable only because they are large re-writes. Like the above, these are changes were more than about 5K or 10K bytes, sometimes doubling the size of the article.

non-math

Edits of 500 bytes or more were made to these non-math articles:

TODO

I am breaking my own rules about TODO-lists, namely, that they should never be created, because they will never be done. That said, the following red-links could be interesting and fun to write:

Split Markov odometer into two articles, the second being adding machine (ergodic theory) or maybe just odometer (ergodic theory). Or maybe don't split; just fill in more details?

Ergodic decomposition theorem. There is an itty-bitty statement of the theorem in ergodicity but it is not stated generally, nor is it stated formally. A nice informal description is in conservative system. A suitable formal defintion can be found in Danilenko, Alexandre I.; Silva, Cesar E. (2009). "Ergodic theory: Nonsingular transformations". Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Springer. arXiv:0803.2424.

Things worth doing:

Expand Darboux's theorem and connect to Darboux transformation explain in plain language what EOM says: Darboux transformations Q±Q± are ladder operators, the intertwining relation H(1)Q+=Q+H(0)H(1)Q+=Q+H(0) gives rise to a supersymmetry algebra, the Kac-Moody algebra.

OMG:

Fix Affine Lie algebra so that it is not utterly opaque. This is not hard. It can be stated in much simpler terms!

Create some redirects

Things that an anonymous IP address cannot do:

Create redirect x to y

Hmm

Banned users: User:Hillman - User:Likebox - User:Silly rabbit - User:Incnis Mrsi

A big list (but not all are banned users?): Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians -- Template:Remember the lost -- oh my, that template has become a red link. Such deletions are just ... shameful.

Harassed users: User:Michael Hardy

Unhappy users: User:Deltahedron

Conformal boostrap

See Talk:Conformal_bootstrap — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsAboveAll (talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Link grammar, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 20:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Can you give me a chance to finish editing? There are hundreds of papers published on link-grammar, many of them provide the basics. I will add references shortly.67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Link grammar, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.

Sources are required, per WP:CHALLENGE Scr★pIron^IV 20:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I can't add them if you keep reverting! Can you give me a chance to finish editing first? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mass, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay. Which change? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frame-dragging

Hello 67.198.37.16. Per the location of your IP you may possibly be connected with a research group at University of Texas. It seems you've been doing good work at Lense–Thirring precession. Since you commented at Talk:Frame-dragging I'd like to know if you have any suggestions on how to resolve the dispute about Iorio's work. Evidently he has some academic credibility, though his views are not universally held. The usual standards applied by Wikipedia administrators indicate that mass restoration of references to Iorio's work are unlikely to be allowed to remain. Though I am not a practicing physicist, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, and we do have active physicists who can be called upon (if we can get their attention). Can you recommend any review articles that mention Iorio's work that could be cited to show the degree to which he has mainstream credibility? Also I recommend that you create an account. Thanks for your contributions, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to reply, so I'll reply briefly here, and in the other article. From what I can tell, the dispute is about self-promotion, not credibility, right? I can try to google up some review article, but I don't see how credibility would be an issue: some simple search terms typed into google suggests he has hundreds of papers published in refereed journals, with dozens of co-authors. Its impossible to "pull the wool" over that many people, so my general impression is that he is "academically credible". Regarding "views (that) are not universally held", well, that is an issue as old as science itself. Modern-day examples can be found by looking at exit polls taken at academic conferences: typically, some handful of controversial questions are asked, and the replies are inevitably 1/3 to 2/3rds one way or another, and when asked again 5 or 10 years later, the replies invariably flip-flop. Is there some specific attack that you are aware of?

I thought I'd dig around, I just now skimmed the a sequence of papers on the Mars Global Surveyor data, where there's work by Iorio and a rebuttal by Krogh, and a rebut to that by Iorio, again. If you read through these, they read like standard scientific controversies: neither is claiming that the other is not credible: they're wrangling over details: apparently, Iorio said "5 years" when he should have said "5 years and 2 months". Apparently he is "misinterpreting data": over the course of the mission, better gravitational modelling of the mountains on Mars has resulted in better estimates of the trajectory of the satellite, decreasing the errors of orbital estimates ... by the time people are arguing over stuff like that, you have to assume they're both credible, and its a standard controversy, and possibly one or both sides are making mistakes. When I search for Evidence of the gravitomagnetic field of Mars google tells me that its "Cited by 60" and clicking on that link indeed shows all sorts of citations. Its hard to get that many citations, period, under any circumstances. To get that many if you're not credible is nearly impossible (but I suppose it happens.)

So again, I assume that the issue is excessive self-promotion, rather than technical merit. I don't really know how to deal with self-promotion. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Its also clear that he's a bit of a hot-head. Most experts are. Which surely violates the WP "civility" rules. ... so let me take a pot-shot ... In case you haven't noticed, hot-head editors are routinely banned from Wikipedia. I believe that this explains why the Wikipedia science articles are in such disasterously bad condition: they keep getting written by undergraduates who kind-of don't have a clue of what they're writing about. Meanwhile, all of their profs have been banned for violating civility and what-not polcies. This is a major weak-spot in the current Wikipedia administration: you can't keep banning authorities and still expect to get high-quality articles. (For example, Lense-Thirring was a complete train-wreck of failure before I cleaned it up; its only marginally better now, I tried to bring it up to not being "obviously false", but that's it. More or less *every* article I review in WP is failed and flawed in some deep, fundamental way.) WP has to find some way of accommodating hot-head behavior, controversy, etc. without routinely banning everyone who is an expert. I dunno how to solve this problem, it appears to be very deeply rooted. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply. It is not easy to get a proper discussion going at Frame-dragging if one party appears to be stuffing their own material in, even if, by coincidence, they could be one of the major figures in the field. 15-30 mentions of Iorio is likely to be too many. If any controversies involving Iorio could be summarized in one or two sentences with a link to further reading that might be sufficient. Administrators are well-prepared to deal with self-promotion, but producing a well-written article is a harder task. We would still like to take advantage of User:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.'s knowledge if there is any way of engaging him diplomatically. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I independently wrote to Spinningspark on its Talk page before the most recent, quite interesting and important evolutions here and in the article's Talk page, I am absolutely ready to be engaged diplomatically and to cooperate. I agree with the idea of reducing the amount of citations to my works and, if required, to rewrite some sentences in a more impartial tone, if it is the case. Thank you. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 67.198.37.16, thank you for your mature, wise and significative approach. I think I've learned a lot on this specific issue and on several others. Best regard. PS I would suggest to go to SAO/NASA-ADS: it is more complete and trustable than Google Scholar. It allows also to cope with the self-citations issue through the tori and the riq indexes. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, please, edit the page? Another utter jerk just came in. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please create an account. If you do that I can give the account permission to edit the locked article. It is not technically possible to do that for an unregistered IP address. SpinningSpark 08:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On self-promotion, the position is quite simple. We expect the person with a conflict of interest to leave it to neutral editors to decide whether to use the material, modify it, or leave it out altogether. If they do not, and continue to fight in-article, they risk being hounded off the project. As someone not connected with Iorio and scientifically knowledgeable you are in an ideal position to make that call. SpinningSpark 08:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that L. Iorio deserves an article in Wikipedia, but I see that only admins can recreate it. Redwheel (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure constant factoid

Hello, I'm Andrea Insinga. I write you to ask your help about one of your contributions to the page Structure constants. In order to continue my research I really need a good reference for the following statement:

The structure constants are completely anti-symmetric in all indices if and only if the Lie algebra is a direct sum of simple compact Lie algebras.

Can you suggest me a book or scientific paper where I can find a more detailed explanation about this statement? That would really help me a lot!

Best regards, Andrea Insinga 17 August 2017

I assume that pretty much any book on Lie algebras will state this, and it will probably do this in the first 2 or 3 chapters. They typically describe all the different kind of Lie algebras, and then state what the semi-simple ones are, then they state why they will work only with semi-simple and ignore the others. You should try to get access to a university math library, and just go into the stacks, and search there. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the book "Affine Lie Algebras and Quantum Groups" by Jurgen Fuchs is probably too advanced for you, but in the first few chapters, he does a fast/quick review Lie algebra basics. The affine algebras are not compact and so provide an example where the structure constants do not have a simple form. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I will try looking in the book you suggested. Best, Andrea —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetric group

About your comment on the talk page - I think you might like to read WP:NOT. You will see that WP is aimed to be clear and concise about facts of relevance, not a collection of all possible knowledge. Of course, each particular case is different. In the future, if you think something relevant is missing, find it first perhaps on the web and link to your comment on the talk page. If it's really hard to find, it is more likely than not that this info is not all that notable and best be omitted in the article. Happy editing! Mhym (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can you be more precise? Is there some particular comment, edit or change that you refer to? I think I made over 100 edits yesterday, to maybe a dozen articles, so stating that some of these edits might not be notable is really not sufficient for me to figure out which ones, in particular, that you are refering to. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one: [1]

OK, Interesting. What, exactly, makes you think that this is is too obscure to be notable? I'm fairly certain that it shows up on lecture black-boards on a regular basis, and so would be in some textbooks somewhere or another. I don't believe that particular bit of knowledge is either obscure or non-notable. I was just plotzing along, from article to article, tripped over this, and thought I'd add a note. There's a meta-issue, at play here: pretty much all math and physics articles on wikipedia kind-of totally suck, and are missing pretty much most information that, for example, students might get during classroom lectures. So, if you are a student, learning something for the first time, or an adult, trying to remember something you once heard, Wikipedia is kind-of wholly inadequate for providing those details (at least, for math/physics). So your complaint that something is too obscure to be noted rings hollow, to me -- the articles, in general, contain far too little information. The symmetric group, in particular, is hugely important: Its sort of the entry point into Lie algebras, see for example, the book "Representation Theory - A First Course" - William Fulton - Springer for all the stuff one could say about the symmetric group, but that this article does not say. And that's just the "first course". What about the second and third course? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello, I'm Kirbanzo. I noticed that you recently removed content from Judgment (mathematical logic) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please explain why exactly the content you were removing is "junk" please. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Umm, how much more of an adequate explanation can you possibly want? Did you look at the edit summary? The content that was added was clearly insane and the talk page goes into details about it. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Judgment (mathematical logic), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop! If you are an expert in mathematical logic, then please engage in a conversation on the talk page of the article. Otherwise, please stop interfering! I am trying to remove content that is simply insanely incorrect! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@67.198.37.16:, I apologize for reverting your edits, the tools that editors use to manage vandalism tagged your edits as blanking. I see that I'm not the only editor to revert your edits due to the same issue. I'm not an expert in mathematics so I cannot confirm your position concering the state of the article. Next time you have an issue, please wait for others to discuss it on the talk page. Reverting edits after they have been reverted three times is against WP:RRR. Please refrain from this practice. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But please don't wikilawyer -- I'm not the one reverting, you are; don't even try to somehow turn this around and blame it on me!!! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spin group

Hello.
Are you the same person who screw up the product notation some three years ago? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply (although the question wasn’t answered explicitly). Now also here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Fixed. See commentary there. There was a shortage of adequate notation. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I believe pings don't work with IP addresses; this is to let you know that I have responded on my talk page. --JBL (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linas

Please respond to the allegations here before you next edit. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months to prevent you from evading blocks.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)). ST47 (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock; there is no stated reason for the block; from what I can tell, this is part of a long-running harassment campaign. If there is some specific edit that was objectionable, or some specific behavior pattern that is is disturbing someone in some way, then please articulate it, bring it out in the open, for all to see. Let's not machinate behind closed doors, OK? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not explained the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linas. You will not be unblocked until you do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Request reason:

Please unblock. (1) I cannot reply to the sockpuppet accusation because it has been archived. (2) The reason, presented below, is quite clear. I have made 5000 edits in the course of five years; until now, no one noticed. I then made a political edit, this one, to an official high up in the WP hierarchy, and within hours was accused of being a sockpuppet - an accusation that could have been made at any time over the last 5 years, but wasn't. An accusation that no one bothered to make until I made a post that rubbed someone the wrong way. I then made a second post, this one, in which I attempted to bring into much sharper relief the core issue with regards to user-blocking, user-banning. Then I was immediately blocked. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to notice that the silencing of political dissent on Wikipedia is commonplace and wide-spread. It's abundantly clear that ya'll really, really don't like it when non-admins talk about blocking policy, or raise objections about the the community process. This particular block is a shining, brilliant example of this. Made-to-order, even. I am being blocked to prevent me from expressing political views about the nature of adminship in WP. Now, I could have been accused of sock-puppetry or any number of other blockable offenses (incivility, 3RR, etc.) at any time over the course of these five years -- but I wasn't. Until just the last few days, very little of my activity was of an overtly political nature. My subversive activity did not rise above the threshold of noticeability. Triggered no alarms. But once I began to talk about the politics of blocking and banning users, I was blocked. The block arrives just in time, as if to intentionally prove my point: WP faces a deep and fundamental problem with regards to the use of blocks. Y'all don't like hearing about this problem, or addressing it, or taking the steps needed to reform adminship and administration in WP. You would much rather silence critics, such as I, when we get outspoken. I hope that this conversation stands out as a shinning, clear-cut beacon, shedding light on the fundamental organizational problems of adminship on Wikipedia. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can respond to the sockpuppet accusations here, that's what this page is for. It's not okay to be "subversive" even if it isn't noticed immediately. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you bother writing an unblock request like this that obviously would never be accepted by anyone? You should retract it. Ping me if you would like advice about filing unblock requests with a positive probability of success. --JBL (talk) 17:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, it's not obvious to me, I guess. Look at how 331dot responded: "its not ok to be "subversive"" -- without any clear articulation about why defending User:Incnis Mrsi and/or talking to User:Kbrown_(WMF) is "subversive". Where's the line of "subversion" being drawn? How can one tell when that line is over-stepped? How do I move from being "subversive", or do I have to live in fear that any/every political comment that I make might be punished for being "subversive" in some undefined way?

I guess I'm willing to listen to advice, but the mind-set of these people is very alien to me. I don't understand what they are thinking, or what makes their actions defensible, or socially acceptable. The attitude of "punish first, then see if the victim is still alive" is a bizarro reaction to an attempted chat with a high-level WP muckitty-muck. It's like, what? Talking to Putin, after which a hit is taken out on you? In the modern Western tradition, we are not supposed to act in this way. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who said your activity was subversive. The purpose of allowing you to edit this talk page is to allow you to contest the reason for the block. If you intend to continue using it for some other purpose, I will adjust the block settings. ST47 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to capture the attention of User:Kbrown_(WMF) regarding a topic that I believe to be of interest to her. I quote from her user page: "I am a Trust & Safety Specialist at the Wikimedia Foundation. My responsibilities as part of the Trust and Safety team include liaising with the Ombuds Commission, supporting the Foundation's work in furthering Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces." I attempted to inform her of a recurring pattern of blocking highly capable, highly knowledegable WP editors. This, to me, seems like a prime example of "Trust & Safety", and thus worthy of her awareness and involvement. The direct outcome of that contact was that I was blocked. I am well aware that talking about "Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces" on WP is considered to be highly subversive in some quarters. It should not be. If some admins are going to punish talking about "Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces" then there should at least be some guideline or policy that publicly articulates that such conversation is not tolerated on WP. Otherwise, one is left to guess: what kind of speech is allowed on WP, and what kind is not?

I don't know how to appeal the block. JBL was kind enough to offer help with that. Without help, it seems unlikely that I will be able to express myself in a fashion that is acceptable to you. The first two appeals failed; I did not find the correct words. I don't understand what is expected of me, or what to say, or how to say it. I need to be able to strategize how to arrange a third appeal that might work. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linas (if I may presume),

I will try to keep my comments short and to the point. The obvious (to me) problem with your unblock request is that it is entirely about what you think is important. The administrators who review it do not share your view of what is important: their role in reviewing unblock requests is narrow, focused on interpreting a certain set of rules in a relatively context-independent way. At the moment, you are blocked as a sock-puppet, i.e., because you have an account and you are editing while logged out instead of using the account. If you were not Linas, then the obvious thing to do would be to concisely try to make that clear; however, my impression is that you are Linas and you don't dispute that you are Linas. In that case, the thing to do is to be honest, admit that you are Linas, and submit an unblock request as Linas. In that request, you should emphasize that you have been making contributions in a productive way, have been avoiding whatever it was that you were originally blocked for, and also you should commit to no longer using more than one account if unblocked. Any discussion of Wikipedia hierarchies, politics, KBrown, Incnis Mrsi, etc. will be counter-productive. (Of course I cannot guarantee that any of this will work, but it could possibly work; your approach above could not possibly work.) Also WP:GAB might be helpful.

I would take your time crafting your next unblock request, keeping your intended audience and their perspective in mind.

Hope this helps,

15:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The admins who blocked User:Linas are still active on WP. The only route to getting that account unblocked is to recruit a larger group of admins, convince them that unblocking Linas is a worthy cause, and have them go off and fight where-ever it is that admins go and fight. This is extremely unlikely. The block is in perpetuity; there is no mechanism by which an appeal can be heard. (Of course, there is a formal "appeal process", but its absurd: one writes a private email to some address, requesting unblock; the reply is an insult.) FWIW, the original block started because there is a math-book publisher called "New Age Publishing"... some admin started tagging math articles with 'Category:New Age Religion', and I called that admin a bad word. This lead to the perma-ban.

The ban-and-appeals system is opaque, it has no oversight or controls, and allows bad actors to run around with impunity. WP needs basic reforms in multiple areas; for starters, a system of checks and balances by which the mob impulses of the admins can be kept under control. Why it doesn't have such a system is an interesting sociological question. Perhaps appealing to some young political-science or social-science grad student looking for a PhD topic: understanding the causes of the failed political structure of WP adminship.

(To be clear: the WP:GAB looks nice in writing, but doesn't actually work that way, as you can see above. To paraphrase Pauli, "it's not even toilet paper".) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find nothing in your comment that I care to respond to; let me know if you'd like me to restore your comment on Tsirel's talkpage. --JBL (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, yes, that would be nice. And thank you for listening; I'm mostly just venting. We live in a world filled with crises; issues with WP adminship is a tiny one on the scale of things. It can wait. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored your comment there. You are welcome. I agree, and your relatively calm attitude is refreshing. All the best, JBL (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative system moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Conservative system, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your contributions on mathematics articles. Hope to see more of your contributions. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Conservative system

Hello,

I have reverted some edits on Conservative system that concern style of writing, and MOS:STYLERET tells not to change between accepted styles, unless other main editors agree.

As you are the main editor of that page, feel free to revert my latest edit if you agree with the italicizing of greek letters.

Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 08:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The first half of that article was built out of cut-n-paste from other WP articles (so as to obtain a uniform notation ... and style.) The popular style these days seems to use utf8 whenever possible. I don't much like that, I prefer using <math> tags everywhere, visually, I think math tags are prettier ... but I was lazy and was not about to convert the utf8... so whatever.

Micheal has a long history of bringing various math articles across wikipdeia into a uniform style. By my estimation, he's touched at least 1/4th if not 3/4th's of all 18K math pages on wikipedia, to unify style. In this case he's right - when mixing <math> and utf8 in a jumble, the utf8 should be italic. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Look, it's clear you want to contribute, and that's great, but you're going to have an increasingly hard time doing so while evading a block. If you really want to do this right, log into your main account and post an unblock request. This is an unusual case, and if you can swallow your pride and demonstrate that you want to make the effort to avoid what led to your block in the first place, it has a reasonable shot at succeeding. Your continued evasion will be an issue, but I'm sure something can be worked out. Multiple people have offered their support at various points. If you want, you can ping them from your talk page and see if they're willing to add to any discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I'm not blocked! At least, I wasn't just yesterday... I'm not "evading" anything! Are you confusing me with someone else? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you even admit here, you operated the User:Linas account, which was blocked indefinitely several years ago. Any edits that you have made since then, no matter how well-intentioned, are block evasion. If you continue to edit while logged out of that account while it's blocked, you will no doubt have this IP address (and whatever others are discovered) blocked again, which I think would be a shame. I'm sure I don't have to spell it out in any more detail. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That account has been inactive for more than six years; I assume the block expired long ago; are you claiming that it hasn't? Either way, it makes no sense at all to try to revive it; Wikipedia is one of the most highly toxic corners of the internet, and editing WP under a login is like ... what, I dunno ... like announcing that you are a gay black cross-gender transvestite on some alt-right discussion list? Except they'd probably treat you better than how people are treated here? Every math prof I know (some of them very famous) have been banned; no one particularly wants to have anything at all to do with WP any more. I'm plodding along despite the head-winds; staying anonymous is a reasonable strategy for avoiding the toxicity and lightning bolts that logins attract. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the page on the blocking policy. You don't get around them simply by abandoning the account that was blocked, and indefinite ones don't expire. Despite, as you claim, how toxic it is here, a bunch of people have tried to throw you a life line. I'd suggest you grab it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that. I am certain whatever block it was, it expired a looong time ago. I don't understand why I need a "life-line"; I'm not drowning? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite blocks do not expire. Even if you want to continue editing without logging in, you still need to log into User:Linas and successfully appeal your block. At that point, if you want to abandon your account and continue editing as an IP address, then go right ahead. But you're still evading your original block currently. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the login info for that account. Even if I did, it's extremely unlikely it would be unblocked; it's tainted; it was repeatedly banned far too many times. (So, 6-7 years ago, some guy added something about being kidnapped by a UFO to some math article, and I reverted, and we got into a revert war. As it happens, he was an admin, so he banned me, and soon as that ban expired, all of his buddies banned me again for varying periods of time. I do recall trying to appeal, more than a few times, but was told that it was impossible, that the block had to be permanent due to "higher powers", and that I should either create a new account, or edit anonymously. So that's what I did. I'm just doing what I was told to do, I don't really want to get underneath someone's spot-light again. The spot-lights are painful. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"So, 6-7 years ago, some guy added something about being kidnapped by a UFO to some math article" Are you implying that you're facing a Randy in Boise user? If so, where is it? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 05:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, it was one of the series of articles on monoids, one of trace monoid or history monoid or one of the spin-offs, that contained a citation to some conference proceedings with the unusual title "The Book of Traces" published by a company with the unfortunate name of "New Age Publishing". This book, here; it seems the imprint has since been acquired by World Scientific. I'm imagining that the resemblance of the title to apocryphal religious texts, e.g. the Book of Enoch or Book of Urantia plus the name of the publisher evoking New Age religion triggered an episode. It would take some archeology to dig it out. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So to sum this all up: 1) You've lost your required credentials for logging in to Linas (at this point Linas is blocked) 2)You're doing a great job under the threat of being blocked of socking 3) You're using your IP right now, and all of us can see where is the location 4) You think that Wikipedia is one of the most toxic corners of the internet, but you keep editing nicely here 5) A long time ago you faced a Randy in Boise admin and lost.

Well, the best thing to do is appeal. As Deacon Vorbis said above: a bunch of people have tried to throw you a life line. I'm throwing you another one. It is up to you to get on the line and hop back to the boat, or get drowned on the endless ocean of blocked users. Cheer up, and do the right thing. Declare you ownership to the Linas account, and appeal. After you get yourself a nice new account, declare that Linas is your account.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm breaking absolutely zero Wikipedia rules. Why do you feel compelled to threaten me? Why do you feel compelled to have a conversation with me? Why can't you just ... leave me alone? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that you are breaking no rules here. You are a very good contributor, and its nice to see you here. The problem is that your other account is blocked, which means that someone in office thinks that you are breaking rules. It's a pleasure to discuss with you, and I hope I'll see you again sometime later (although you might not). Keep editing Wikipedia. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 04:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, I've completed all of your redirect articles. Feel free to check it. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ask forgiveness

It might be helpful to ask forgiveness to people that you have personally attacked. You might ping them here, or else. This is just an advice. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 04:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for forgiveness from a bully is inviting a punch to the stomach. One learns this on school playgrounds, and it continues to apply in adult life. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only way to know if its a bully is to try ask forgiveness for them first. If they don't punch you, you know they are not bullies. If you get punched in the stomach, you know what to do. You don't die from a single punch to the stomach, eh? 😀 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the User:Linas account has been blocked for more than a year ... apparently, I'm told, for seven years. For a punch in the stomach, seven years a long time to be in a coma. That gang of bullies were rather relentless, they did not stop with just a few bans and leave it at that; they piled them on. The appeals to higher levels came down with a clear message: this gang is very well-connected politically, up to the top, and they cannot be challenged. I was explicitly told, more than once, that the User:Linas account could never-ever be unblocked, and that I should either create a brand-new account, or edit anonymously. I've no reason to believe that the situation has changed.

For example, scroll up, and you will see a 6-month ban for a "sock puppet" accusation. Clearly, this accusation is patently false. There was no sock-puppeting, as the User:Linas account has been inactive for 6-7 years. No matter that the accusation is false, the ban held. So if its not that, then what DID I do that deserved a 6-month ban? What was it that got this particular admin tied up into a knot? If you examine this closely, you will see it is because I posted a (friendly) message to User:Kbrown_(WMF). She's a high-up mucketty-muck. She never replied. Instead, I was banned under a false accusation! That is how it goes. These lessons are really quite clear. My conclusion is that there's a band of thugs, at the admin level, that have insinuated themselves into Wikipedia, and they rule by total fiat, and are willing to make utterly baseless and false accusations to justify their ruthless application of power. The entire adminship is corrupt.

This may not be clear to you, but I have been around for fifteen years, and I have watched each and every capable and competent academic hounded out and blocked. This includes assorted prize-winning academics. You don't have to take my word for this, you can do the science yourself: go through the biographies of living people, figure out which of them are mathematicians or physicists, figure out which of them have edited Wikipedia, and then figure out which of them has NOT been banned. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one (yet, they are inactive). Don't ask me to reveal the identity, as that would be compromising; it is, however, a name that you would recognize from popular science blogs.

This is how things go around here. The culture is toxic, and it's not getting better. One last example: why, exactly is it that you all -- total anonymous strangers, have appeared at my door, to hound me into having a conversation that I do not want to have? What is it about "toxic culture" that y'all don't understand? Does it not occur to you that perhaps you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note on User talk:Linas about getting an appeal set up, which I'll take the lead on - the basic gist is that this all ancient history and if we are actually here to write and improve an encyclopedia instead of being a glorified social network, we should probably think about an unblock. (In light of the above comments - I've basically been mulling this over for about four years) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Is there something I should do? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upthread you said, "I don't have the login info for that account. Even if I did, it's extremely unlikely it would be unblocked; it's tainted; it was repeatedly banned far too many times." Does that mean you've forgotten your original password for the Linas account, or simply that when you log in, you can't do anything (because you get the stock "you are unable to edit Wikipedia" message)? I think if you can access the original account, it's more straightforward to run the appeal on that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attempt password recovery. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, you may be interested in this discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Whiffs of scandal and outrage ... just right now, I cannot don my political-thinking-cap; I'm busy with something else. But, indeed! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal is up : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block review : Linas Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. Are the three admins above (plus two more, named below), who made the false sockpuppet accusations, recused from the proceedings? Or do they get to "vote"? I don't understand what drove them to make the false accusations in the first place. Without that key piece of knowledge, I'm concerned that whatever power interests created this incident will continue to be at play in the appeal. I don't understand the motives of these people, and without understanding that, its hard to guess how the power structures are organized. This whole thing could back-fire badly; I'm concerned that all they'll do is ban this IP addr permanently. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: if I look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linas/Archive I can see two admins making false accusations: User:1989 and User:ST47. If I scroll up, I see three admins making false accusations: User:L235 aka "Kevin" and User:NinjaRobotPirate and User:331dot. That is a total of five different admins working in cahoots with one-another to ban this IP address. Who are their friends? Are their friends actively involved in the proceedings? Most importantly, what is driving these people to behave dishonestly and pugnaciously? What are the underlying motives? What caused them to focus on me? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to continue to make personal attacks, such as accusing us of "making false accusations", then you will be blocked again. I chose not to block you when I saw that you were editing again because I thought that having you editing could be a net positive. Stop trying to disprove that. ST47 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Cheer up!

Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]