User talk:Syrmath

Welcome!

Hello, Syrmath, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Talk pages

You are very welcome to edit Wikipedia (aka "WP"). Although please do not edit, overwrite, or change other peoples comments, as you did in this edit, it is discourteous and does not reflect the intended message of the actual editor(s), please see WP:talk page guidelines.

By all means, do join in to discussions: write what you would like to propose that may improve the article (note that talk pages are not forums to "chat" about subject matter - they exist to discuss article issues constructively ), then sign your signature, in the same way as others. You may also change your signature in the preference link at the top right, though see also Wikipedia:Signatures.

Thank you, and all the best, Maschen (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Syrmath

A quick note about the Pendulum article. You might notice that there are at least two articles that are of interest: Pendulum and Pendulum (mathematics). I welcome the formula that uses the M and K functions in the artcile Pendulum (mathematics) (whch has a more mathematically-aware readership), but I feel that it is out of place in the artcile Pendulum which has a much more general readership. You might also notice concerns about the length of the article Pendulum, it is now of a length where people are looking at whather or not anything can be chopped out of the artcile, not added. Given these multiple concerns, I am sure that you will see why we are tryng to keep things simple. Martinvl (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Syrmath,

I have reverted your last set of changes. I have opened up a discussion at Talk:Pendulum#Quantity of maths in article. Please add your view there and please do not revert again. Martinvl (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You have been blocked one month for using this account to evade the block of 193.233.212.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That IP is under an existing 48-hour block for edit warring at Pendulum, per this 3RR complaint. When you are blocked, you must not edit Wikipedia under any identity. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi

This will be my last intervention however I ask you to unblock my account. I did not abuse, only undone twice that means I did not violate 3RR. I am a French Mathis amateur, please stop accusing me to be a Russian IP and then a sock puppet just because an editor thought it true. Is this Wikipedia administration policy? Articles are not the property of those who wrote them, please be open minded as you claim you are and be tolerant with people who have interesting things to say. You should encourage them instead of arbitrarily accusing and blocking them.

I in fact created my account to support a genius new mathematical formula not to support a person promoting his own formula as you claim. Anyway,even if that was true I'm not interested in that person but in the formula itself! Chetverno is also supported by those who appreciate his article as is. We cannot say that Earth is flat given that it is the classical knowledge and it is easy to understand for the majority of people. You must promote the actual truth that's all. I learned from this experience with Wikipedia that you don't respect your own rules... Profoundly disappointed I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrmath (talk • contribs)

Hello Syrmath. Can you clarify if this is the first time you have edited Wikipedia, either the English or the French versions? Also, can you indicate what led you to create this account and suddenly plunge into the debate at Pendulum? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello EdHohnston.

Yes, I've never edited Wikipedia before, neither in French nor in English.

As you might know the new formula has just been published in a prestigious american mathematical journal (where I read it, you can do that online), and the pendulum formula is discussed in that article. That's why I went to read the articles about pendulum in Wikipedia at that time. The first time I read the Wikipedia article about pendulum, the formula 2 (the M formula that Chetverno and his supporters refuse) was in the article (I understood later that it was a moment when the IP mentioned person had inserted it in the article). In fact when I next did not find it, I felt frustrated to see such a nice formula deleted. So I wanted to support it. And, you know the rest of the story...

I might have been a little aggressive in engaging myself in edit-warring but anyway, I still feel frustrated not to see the formula in both articles of pendulum and not only in that of pendulum mathematics. I thought that Wikipedia was not judging the quality of readers (that is to say some material must be easy to understand for all, and other must be oriented). There must be clever people everywhere and they have the right to be respected and find the best material where it has to be written.

Thank you anyway for your message, I promise you will never see me again...

I just wanted to clarify the case and not be blocked for false reason.

All the best

May I put things into perspective. The article Pendulum references anothor article Pendulum (mathematics). Syrmath is a mathematician, but not everybody has his mathematical ability - in fact may readers are put off by maths. That is why the article Pendulum (mathematics) was written and why the level of maths in the article Pendulum has been kept to a minimum. If Syrmath visits the discussion Talk:Pendulum#Quantity of maths in article, he will understand why other editors believe that this formula does not have a place in the article Pendulum, but is a valuable contribution to the article Pendulum (mathematics). Martinvl (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI (Sock puppetry investigation)

Hi - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sandro78 and talk:Pendulum. Thanks. Maschen (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I regret to be taken for a sockpuppet! Yet, I regret the last insistant comment of Chetvorno! I confirm again that I will never edit WP again, because you keep accusing people on a fragile basis. I explained to EdJohnston why I created my account motivated by an interesting discussion, I visited the editing page later... It was a coincidence, but it is useless to explain. The Wikipedia adventure was very short for me.

• If you have openly admitted sockpuppetery, then we haven't "accused you" on any "fragile" basis (more like plentiful evidence).
• There wouldn't be anything to regret if you desisted from violating consensus. What you have done was tiresome though not actually that harmful (aside from the occasional personal attack/accusations of other people vandalizing when they haven't, which you shouldn't do, though people may usually ignore the odd one here and there). If you edited articles constructively and not edit-warred - you would be a valuable contributor! (WP always needs rewriting - there is almost no end to improving the millions of articles WP has).
• To reiterate what everyone thinks - no-one says the formula "is bad or wrong". The point is that general articles like Pendulum should make technical articles understandable with the minimum amount of maths, and long articles need trimming to ~50-60 kB. Adding another formula will not help most readers, they will just see it and think "it's just another formula...". Specialist articles (like Pendulum (mathematics), or Derivation of the Navier–Stokes equations) are perfectly fine provided they're well-(secondary) sourced and well-written.
• Given that you're academic - then I'm sure you have plenty of knowledge and potential to improve WP. If you are unblocked, I hope you will do so.

Best, Maschen (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)