User talk:Charles Matthews/Talk:Lubos Motl

What is my "ridiculous misuse" of this page? It's my intention to talk about the content of the article, which requires talking about the subject of the article. I'm not talking about the author of the article, except coincidentally, if the author and the subject happen to be the same person. Under those circumstances, wrote I wrote becomes awkward, even ironic, but hardly a misuse of the page. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss the content of the article, for example, to justify edits -- which is what I did. -- Toby Bartels 19:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually surprised you want to go public on this.

A user talk page in Wikipedia is private enough. As far as I can tell, only you, Lumidek, and I are paying any attention.

Well, then, let me clarify that Talk:Lubos Motl is not a user talk page. Charles Matthews

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "go public". In fact, now I don't think that I know what you mean at all. '_` -- Toby Bartels 01:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm paying attention! Lethe

Let me just say that I am a string theory grad student, and also a long time reader of s.p.r and now also of s.p.s. I have only been a wikipedian for a month or two, but at this point, I cannot see anything wrong with Toby's actions. I defer to more experienced Wikipedians Lethe

Charles MatthewsWell, I may have this entirely wrong. Maybe the way to get Edward Witten as a contributor here would be to write on the discussion page there that it's a sad reflection on the Fields Medal committee that he got an award (which some people have thought).

Well, why not? I mean, isn't that what the Talk page is for? to discuss with other people what sorts of things should be in the article and why or why not? doesn't that necessarily include expressing opinions about people? like saying that Witten didn't deserve his medal on the talk page might lead to a more NPOV position in the article, right? Lethe

From Wikipedia:Talk pages - Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject.

So, I think Toby was out of order here; and if Lethe thinks the talk pages are for general gossip, that is not correct. Charles Matthews 06:13, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are right. According to the letter of the policy, that may not have been acceptable usage. But also note that on the page you link, it states "That said, Wikipedians are fallible creatures, so it's entirely natural that a bit of partisan wrangling takes place on talk pages - and occasionally this even leads to improvements in the article! So there's a fair degree of tolerance, and most Wikipedians succumb to a bit of wrangling from time to time". So i don't think we should get upset if there was some "partisan wrangling". Toby is a valuable contributor, let's have some tolerance!Lethe

I have to say, I'd assumed this discussion had run its course. Lubos is adding many new physics pages. I wrote and thanked him, apologising on behalf on WP for Toby's reception of him. There may or may not be any connection.

Charles Matthews 20:42, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I wrote on your page, I have had trouble replying to your email.

I'd like to figure this out then. As I wrote there, I don't understand what the trouble is. If you want to talk about this only by email, then let's talk here about how to fix the email problem instead.

So when I tried to reply to your email, I met some spam-block at your institution; and at an alternate address. Maybe this was a temporary glitch.Charles Matthews

I hope that it is! I consider this a very serious matter, since I've never instructed UCR to block any of my incoming mail. (I even got upset when they started deleting viruses!) So if you can't email me, then I'd definitely like to get to the bottom of it. Where exactly did you mail the reply, and what exactly was the spam-block message? -- Toby Bartels

I know you have embarrassed me with this.

I'm sorry that you're embarrassed! I don't think that you have any reason for embarrassment, since you're just a bystander. But at the same time, if you want to drop the whole thing, then that's fine by me.

I'm embarrassed for the project. How many people in the world could write us survey pages on strings that are well-informed? 100? What attitude does WP show? Petty, demeaning retailing of gossip from a physics schism. Charles Matthews

Ah, I understood what you mean now. My impression is that Lubos finds the situation amusing; I would feel embarrassed too if he'd gotten upset and I was now scrambling to make him stay. But he seems to have forgiven me. -- Toby Bartels

If you are not yourself embarrassed, I don't know why.

I don't generally find it embarrassing to dicuss my mistakes. There are exceptions to that, but also keep in mind that I don't find my mistake here to be nearly as big as you seem to find it.

Well, then, I'd say you're less of a person than I took you for. Look, you could have done the edit summary 'no, not flame wars'; not solicit people's recent Lubos stories and call him 'a big jerk'. Normal where you come from, is this? Charles Matthews

It's normal for me, when editing a newbie for the first time, to explain myself carefully and (if possible) express sympathy for their position. This is the first time that that has backfired, but I'll take more care in the future. -- Toby Bartels

In terms then: it is a ridiculous misuse of Wikipedia talk pages to bring up UseNet exchanges; someone's suitability as a newsgroup moderator; and things you believed to be true of them a year ago.

What's ridiculous about that? Outside of context, nobody would agree with your statement. If an article talks about a famous person's behaviour on UseNet, then the article's talk page is precisely the place to discuss that person's behaviour on UseNet. Certainly, if I'd known that the person that I was talking about was the same as the person that I was talking to, then I would have said different things. As it was, they seemed to be different people; the article Lubos Motl is now nicer to Lubos, thanks to my edit, than the original article that User:Lumidek wrote!

Give me patience. No, you don't have to balance the article tweak with saying bad things on the talk page. I think you assumed the article writer was 'sympathetic' to your negative view, and didn't want to offend some ally for some other battle later. So, are you in with the crowd who shout 'Lysenkoism'? It should be quite obvious that WP's interests are to keep clear of forums where it's all about personalities. Charles Matthews

No, my crowd is the one surrounding John Baez, which is why I had handy the link that I did. The guy that was shouting "Lysenkoism" (he doesn't have a crowd that I know of) is Jack Sarfatti (no article on him '_`), and he's rather antipathetic to Baez (more so than to Lubos, as far as I know).

To the extent that I worry about battles in Wikipedia, I think more in terms of clashes of issues. There are many personalities in Wikipedia that are my allies in one sense while my opponents in another. (But mostly I don't think in terms of opponents and battles, since we're all allies in the greater scheme of things.)

It's natural for me to comparmentalise issues like this. Lubos might be my opponent in a debate on loop quantum gravity but my ally in a debate on the mind-body problem. You're my opponent in this present discussion, but you're my ally in trying to get your email past UCR's blocking. I don't hold grudges (nor develop personal loyalty). -- Toby Bartels

I'm surprised, considering your history here, that you could think otherwise.

We disagree about this situation, but given your opinion, this is a compliment about my usual behaviour. So thank you for that! ^_^

I disagree that you should be defending your abuse of the talk page, beginning with abuse of Lubos, by reverting. I don't do revert wars. You apparently think it's smart. You could be contrite. Instead you think an emoticon will do. Well, I've had enough of you. Charles Matthews 06:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I was contrite earlier, but I'm obviously not contrite about the matters that we disagree on. My emoticon was sincere. My only insincerity is that I haven't revealed to you how funny I find the whole thing -- because the one thing that is not funny is your reaction. In fact, I still hope to convince you that things aren't so bad. I haven't had enough of you and look forward to being your ally in the future. -- Toby Bartels 01:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so I lack a sense of humour, now. No, you have been behaving in a partisan, UnWikipedian way, contrary to policy. I reference the WP page about talk pages above, which perhaps you should re-read - it makes it clear that there are other fora for your kind. And next time you don't like someone's newsgroup postings, do us a favour and take it up with them there. Charles Matthews 06:13, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Your sense of humour is fine as far as I know. I clearly did not use the talk page "just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject". -- Toby Bartels 01:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Matthews 20:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Bartels 00:15, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Talk:Loop quantum gravity, compiled in parallel, seems to show how it should work. Charles Matthews 10:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that went more smoothly (only "has a big mouth", not "is a big jerk"), although it happened under different circumstances. Ironically (I can't let a day of this go by without irony, eh? ^_^), the discussants on that page went on to say unkinder (or at least more unkind) things about LM later on (after you posted the link above). -- Toby Bartels 01:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really mean Miguel; you mean this anonymous dan IP. Who is another person with a stake in past UseNet activity; and who is not really discussing the article, just doing the tale-telling bit.

Charles Matthews 07:07, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is an unfortunate case of overspill from USENET onto Wikipedia Talk, as everyone involved except for Charles "met" on s.p.r. Amusingly, I first "met" Charles outside Wikipedia, too (on Sensei's Library), so I guess the Internet is still a small place. As I just said on Talk:LQG, Let's just forget the debate and get on with the content. — Miguel 07:20, 2004 May 27 (UTC)