User talk:Mathmensch

Archives

March 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not even have the time to respond. I've written ~20 articles and a wikibook, I don't know what this is about. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the very worst kind of cyberbullying one could imagine to experience. The climate here is poisonous. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Let me at least explain to you where your "analysis" fails. I've come here because I was insulted several times. I've not misbehaved according to any policy, but merely stated that I wanted to refrain from editing. I do want to improve this site, by removing insulting edits and admins. But apparently, my efforts are in vain. Let me conclude by stating that now, I do wish to return to work on articles, but only those related to Cyberbullying. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And talk page access is removed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to appeal using WP:UTRS now that your TPA is revoked. Any admin should be feel free to unblock you without consulting me. I'd encourage them to read the relevant ANI threads and this user talk thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20985 was submitted on Mar 23, 2018 15:29:11. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a good idea to unblock right now as we'll probably get pointy or disruptive edits on cyberbullying topics. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree except I think it's more likely than "probably". I also don't think the user will necessarily restrict their editing to just that topic. As I told them at my Talk page (before the block), based on their comments, they would be better off somewhere else on the Internet. Editing on Wikipedia with the sole goal of slamming the project and its editors is not contributing to the encylcopedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were clearly editing here to prove a point, and have continued that editing on meta after this block, being disruptive there and ~~following SarekOfVulcan to his meta talk page after he couldn't post on en.wiki anymore.~~ I don't think unblocking would be wise, but I'm also not going to stand in the way if someone else wants to on UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong sequence of events. I removed text from m:Don't be a jerk that they had added after the last go-round. It was after that edit that they showed up on my talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. They were fighting with -revi after the block based on the text that revi later removed from the userpage, and I saw the contributions and must have gotten the time stamps mixed up. My fault. Still, not exactly being a productive contributor cross-project. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21575 was submitted on May 20, 2018 18:07:35. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21577 was submitted on May 20, 2018 19:43:18. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #23379 was submitted on Nov 26, 2018 07:58:18. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #24377 was submitted on Mar 19, 2019 18:21:11. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Di

Template:Di has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #80742

I have reenabled talk page access so this user may make an unblock request here, as per UTRS appeal #80742. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal #?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I hope that (given my numerous occupations and current extreme fatigue) it will be forgiven that I simply copy & paste my remarks from over at the UTRS page, which was closed due to apparent technical difficulties.

It has now been several years since my block was instated. I have spent the time constructively (for instance, I am creating my mathematics series over at the German wikibooks https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Mathematik_f%C3%BCr_Faule ), but it happens every day that I find a wrong proof on the English wikipedia. Yesterday, I found that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel%27s_correction#Alternative_1 omits important parts of the proof, and today, I noticed that in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runge's_theorem#Proof it is only possible to expand a function as a Laurent series about its poles, whence the iterative procedure given is not sound. I therefore ask for my user ban to be lifted ONLY FOR EDITING MATHS AND PHYSICS ARTICLES.
It goes without saying that respectful discussion is the preferred way of dealing with conflicts on Wikipedia. I certainly do hope that I have not been unknowingly rough to anyone, and will take further steps to decrease the likelihood of that occurring.
I will abstain from writing about what I percieve to have been unjustified user bans. --Mathmensch (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Deepfriedokra recommended that you be unblocked, and in review I think another chance is warranted, so I will remove the block. I'm also going to assume good faith that you will edit in the subject areas you have indicated. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathmensch (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if you do nothing, I'm probably not going to get unblocked. Mathmensch (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I hereby request permission to also edit articles pertaining to chemistry, biology and computer science, or at least after a probation period has passed. Mathmensch (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't edited anything yet, why don't you start with what you initially indicated first. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. As you might have guessed, furthering education is in fact my goal. In a way, it is a matter of life and death, because at the rate the global climate is degenerating, the destruction of our civilisation is not an unlikely event any more (let alone wars and viruses). (Or was that too much already?) Mathmensch (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

Do not do something like this again. Presumably you were attracted to the page by recent news coverage. “Wrong place, wrong time” is an understatement; please have a little more common sense. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: I am gravely concerned about this unsuccessful attempt to curtail my freedom of expression (whether Wikipedia would legally grant it or not). I will certainly not apologise for defending individuals whom I deem innocent, in addition at a place that is not part of the official article space. Could you perhaps refer to any Wikipedia rule I'm supposed to have violated (except for "common sense")? --Mathmensch (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re focusing on the wrong thing. Why were you reading that page in the first place? Because it was covered in the media in relation to a serious crime, yes? Knowing that, what made you think it was a good idea to say such a thing in this moment? It’s disruptive and calls into question your judgement. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: Could you specify how it is disruptive, and how it calls my judgement into question? --Mathmensch (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTFREESPEECH. We have a no tolerance policy for that kind of advocacy. That is non-negotiable. We are here to build an encyclopedia. If it had been me who'd seen that edit I'd have just blocked you. Drop it and move on. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: I'm sure you are well aware that the "kind of advocacy" you are referring to is merely an extremely slight disagreement with a policy. If that is being rewarded by a block, I fail to see how on this earth you can claim to allow **any** debate on Wikipedia policies; you might just as well delete the talk pages. The issues with WP admins are well-documented: More than half of editors are fearful of using due process for fear of blocking. As you yourself highlighted, it is now policy that admins should not hold themselves to the same standards as a state (say) and therefore one might come to wonder if Wikipedia should in the end be a worse place than a state to be in/at. I would also not miss the opportunity to point to an array of scientific studies [1] [2] [3] that prove that your kind of heavy-handed suppression of dissent is damaging the project greatly. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might buy that argument if it were literally any other topic, but not here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: I don't know whether that's true or whether you want to insinuate (as opposed to argue in favour of) a moral taboo in order to justify your argument. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if I'm blocked, I can't contribute. Sorry --Mathmensch (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

For future reference, I remark that the WP:NOTHERE criteria are either obviously not satisfied, or construed so broadly that they would certainly apply rather to the blockers. Mathmensch (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2025 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I'd like to include the following passage to the article powder diffraction, so that for instance [www.youtube.com/watch?v=J16IpITWBQ8 this guy] can read it up:

Consider two parallel light rays of distance $h$ emitted from a laser (dotted slanted lines) hitting a medium that has two layers of partial reflection at an angle $\alpha$ . The condition that the waves within these light rays are congruent is precisely $2l\equiv 2l'\mod L$ , where $L$ is the wavelength (which we assume to be identical for the two rays). In the notation of the picture (where we have $r=l$ ), we have $d=r\sin(\alpha )\Leftrightarrow l={\frac {d}{\sin(\alpha )}}$ . To compute $l'$ depending on $d$ we first compute $c$ ; by the Pythagorean theorem, we have $c={\sqrt {1-\sin(\alpha )^{2}}}l={\frac {\sqrt {1-\sin(\alpha )^{2}}}{\sin(\alpha )}}d$ . We can compute $l'$ depending on $c$ via the Pythagorean theorem and the formula $h=\sin(\alpha )c$ , which yields $l'={\sqrt {1-\sin(\alpha )^{2}}}c=(1-\sin(\alpha )^{2})l$ . Therefore,

2(l-l')=2\sin(\alpha )d

,

whence the light rays are congruent if and only if there exists a $k\in \mathbb {N}$ such that $\sin(\alpha )={\frac {kL}{2d}}$ .

Please don't make this difficult for me. Is it really true that you can't tolerate a single comment that had an opinion (ie. humanism) which is different from their own? --Mathmensch (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:36, 22 October 2025 (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.

@Jpgordon: How am I not WP:HERE if I have obviously demonstrated a willingness to contribute by including yet another contribution? That was kind of the argument here... --Mathmensch (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really feeling the freedom here... bit sad... --Mathmensch (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People are angry and afraid right now. Defending the ideas of the guy who just threatened to shoot himself in front of a large gathering of editors and then doubling down on it when asked to stop is not something that a true mensch would do. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Hitler and Stalin had moustaches that doesn't make moustaches evil. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But now I realise that I fell victim to one of the most favourite strategy of admins: To make one bend over backwards (in my case, by not disputing regarding the incident you mentioned) and then use this to elicit authority in the same or other cases. What a מענטש would do is to defend innocent people who were systematically excluded and discriminated against. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that if you walked into a school after a shooting and said "you know, that shooter's manifesto has a point", that you would be well received? This is not a free speech or discrimination issue or whatever hill you think you're dying on here. This is about you being oblivious to other editors' emotional/mental health in the face of a tragedy where someone almost died. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any freedom here. You only have two rights: the right to leave and the right to fork. This is WP:NOT a platform for freedom of expression. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: Technically, that's not true, because you administrators are to perform your duties in accordance with the Wikipedia rules. Arbitrary bans are obviously not included. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also, it says at the link you posted that "Wikipedia is free and open", and that kind of undermines your point, doesn't it? --Mathmensch (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:DROPTHESTICK. In the strongest possible terms, I urge you to immediately drop the stick. --Yamla (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be an essay rather than a guideline. Nonetheless, not doubting that I would lose talk page access if I wrote another word on the issue, I would like to ask whether there exists at least the possibility to include finished article material like the above. The problem is that I'm actually WP:HERE and merely dared to in addition write an opinionated comment (of which though I was under the impression it might benefit the encyclopedia, in particular in view of the AI crisis and the departure of editors), which obviously was rewarded with an immediate ban. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still unwilling to drop the stick. I see no path for you to be unblocked in the near future. WP:SO might be your best option, along with a robust refutation of your comment. In the meanwhile, I'm considering given your continued refusal to drop the stick, whether or not to take this to WP:AN and request this be upgraded to a WP:CBAN. --Yamla (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's so bad about having multiple, controversial opinions? --Mathmensch (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mathmensch, move to WP:CBAN. Yamla (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's it then, I suppose. I for one am thus lost as an editor. --Mathmensch (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathmensch it is instant karma. The disruption you have caused, the nonsensical unblock requests, and refusing to listen to the editors' advice had all been an ache to us, now with your block, the aching bounced back to you. Please listen to the advice and do no disruption next time (if there will be a next time). Thanks, ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 22:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Community banned

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you have been banned from English Wikipeida. In addition, your talk page access has been revoked. Appealing this ban can be done via the Unblock Ticket Request System. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]