User talk:Persianwise

Cartesian coordinate system[edit]

Moved to Talk:Cartesian coordinate system

User warning[edit]

Your recent editing history at Cartesian coordinates shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. D.Lazard (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been protected (for editing) for a week. After that, some administrators (competent in mathematics) will watch this article. So, if, after that, you continue to try to impose your personal point of view without consensus in the talk page, you may be blocked for editing per WP:POV by an administrator (I am not an administrator). D.Lazard (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "... impose your personal point of view...". They are not my personal view. I stated mathematical facts. Refer to Talk:Cartesian coordinate system, and it's important to answer the question that was asked multiple times that you have left unansewred. Persianwise (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block[edit]

To prevent you from continuing to harass editors I have blocked you from editing the talk pages on which you have been persistently making disruptive edits. The block may be removed if you can convince an administrator that you understand the reason for the block and will not return to the same kind of editing again. If you believe that you can do that, read the Guide to appealing blocks and then post {{unblock |your reason for being unblocked}} at the bottom of this page. JBW (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still saying that number lines and axes are not the same thing? You must answer this question in order the edit warring initiated by other editor and encouraged by you be stopped. Persianwise (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel you have been harassed for being asked this question and not answering it?

Waiting for your answer. Persianwise (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a report on this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#JBW self-reporting in relation to Persianwise, where you may like to comment. JBW (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still have to answer legitimate questions asked:

By "disruptive edit", you mean when I added "or axis" to emphasize that a "number line" is also called an "axis" was not correct. Is that right? Persianwise (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained below that many of your comments have been disruptive. Those who focus excessively on winning battles are not successful at Wikipedia. You need to focus on discussing article content on article talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the block, because on reflection I have decided that I was not the right person to make that decision. The discussion on the noticeboard is still open, however. JBW (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures[edit]

Special:Contributions/Persianwise shows that you have 77 edits and may not be familiar with some standard procedures that apply at Wikipedia. The first point is that a discussion about an article must occur at the talk page of the article concerned. That allows other editors to easily find the discussion now and in the future. It also avoids excessive commentary on user talk pages which many editors find to be disruptive. The second point is that discussions must be focused on content and not on other contributors. I will block you if there are any further negative comments about other people. For example, diff is unacceptable. If you want independent opinions on these kinds of comments, ask at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify how you would deal with an editor who clearly does not have sufficient background to make sensible changes to an article, reverts any corrections that you have made, and yet accuses you of edit warring? Persianwise (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Playing with words is known as wikilawerying and is a negative for the career of an editor. Talk about content and reliable sources. Don't talk about anything else. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You have engaged in edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruptive editing practices. Now would be a very good time to stop, review basic participation rules, and go forward cautiously. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explicitly state the instances of disruptive editing, edit warring, and personal attacks that you mentioned in your comment. Persianwise (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not substantiated your claim of personal attacks. Questioning an editor's competence in a subject is not a personal attack; in fact, it can be beneficial for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. Your claim is subjective and does not fall into any category of personal attack. You also stated that I harassed other editors on my talk page, but you have not provided any evidence to support this claim. In fact, it is you and the other editors who are the culprits. I have been ignoring them because editors are encouraged by Wikipedia to disregard these type of users. I will report you for your baseless claims and disruptive behavior. Persianwise (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan, you have been asked to support your claim of personal attacks. Specifically, please answer the following questions:

1. Who made the claims that you consider to be personal attacks?

2. Why do you believe that their claims are not unfounded?

3. Are you colluding with another administrator, user:JWB, who was involved in edit warring, or with other editors who have been preventing improvements to Wikipedia pages?

Please provide specific examples and evidence to support your claims. It is important to note that Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks, and that editors who engage in such behavior may be subject to disciplinary action. Persianwise (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my above comments on this page at 09:58, 28 September 2023 and 01:51, 29 September 2023? You should modify your approach. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly accused me of edit-warring. I am not aware that I have done so. Are you sure you haven't made a mistake about that? I suggest you check back, and if you find you are not mistaken then please specify when and on what page I have edit-warred, preferably by providing diffs. If, on the other hand, you find that you have made a mistake, then presumably you will wish to correct your mistake and put the record straight. JBW (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For answering to your three questions, a personal attack is a unfavorable comment on another person, such as you did many times by writing that other editors do not understand mathematics (this answers to your question 1). It does not matter whether the personal attack is founded or not (this answers to question 2). Your question 3 is another personal attack as suggesting a bad behavior of someone else. Please, note also that a unfavorable comment on a specific edit (such as saying that it contains wrong assertions) is not a personal attack. See also WP:Personal attacks. D.Lazard (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW, @D.Lazard, @Johnuniq:

Please note that SarekOfVulcan is the intended recipient of these questions. He is the administrator who placed the block, and Wikipedia's blocking policy requires him to provide clear reasons for his actions and to identify himself on the relevant form as the administrator who placed the block.

It is essential that I receive his reply before I reply to each of you individually. Persianwise (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the tree answers to your questions needs a reply, and, per WP:SATISFY, no one is obligated to answer your questions. Instead of requiring replies to silly questions (this is not a personal attack, since very clever people can ask silly questions), you would better take a while for studying all the links to Wikipedia rules that have been provided to you, in order to understand what is wrong with your behavior. D.Lazard (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your response. You may not have realized that you have already answered question 3. Are you colluding with any other editors or administrators? As you may know, mathematicians are often considered the best detectives. Please do not stop replying, as every word you use could give valuable clues that could ultimately lead to a purge in Wikipedia. Persianwise (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is much more than enough of this unreasonable interrogation. I'm revoking talk page access. If I hear of any further harassment, personal attacks, or anything like the threat uttered in the comment above, I will extend the block appropriately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend remembering the law of holes when your block expires. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Polar functions[edit]

Hello, Persianwise. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Polar functions, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persianwise, engaging in discussion when you are in a dispute is not a mere suggestion on this site, it is required. You were blocked because you were edit warring, not because of anything that anybody else did; please see WP:NOTTHEM. Going immediately back to the same page after your block expired and continuing to edit war was spectacularly unwise, and it is fortunate for you that nobody chose to report you then. And then you went back to the same page again to restore your challenged edits, and, well, here we are.

Also, do not write personal attacks here or anywhere else on this site. I have removed your "notice" accusing everyone who has ever edited this page of lying. If you continue using this page to attack other users, you will again lose your talk page access, just like last time. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector For what it's worth, I'd personally recommend a less strict sanction here, and would recommend just a (perhaps temporary) block from the page Cartesian coordinate system. It seems to me that @Persianwise hasn't quite figured out how Wikipedia collaboration works yet, and seems frustrated that nobody else is convinced by their point of view / arguments. While it's true that their edit warring and tendentious discussion style is somewhat wasting people's time in the past day or two, I think with some patience and reflection they might plausibly make useful contributions in the future. –jacobolus (t) 18:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus: "indefinite" does not mean "permanent". I'll unblock Persianwise immediately if they follow the instructions in the notice above to appeal, and commit to discussing their suggested change civilly and constructively instead of ordering people to do things and insulting them when they don't agree, and to refrain from personally attacking other editors. Their comments here since being blocked do not inspire confidence. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comments here since being blocked do not inspire confidence – I can't disagree with that one. Anyway, thanks for stepping in, and all the best. –jacobolus (t) 18:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector If your claim is accurate, then kindly provide evidence to support your accusations fo "ordering people to do things and insulting them when they don't agree, and to refrain from personally attacking other editors." Persianwise (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page, which you can read for ample evidence, I provide an excerpt: after trying to convince others of your stance, and finding that they are unconvinced, here you compared other editors to schoolchildren (Anyone with basic knowledge of mathematics, even school pupils, learns that "number line," "coordinate line," "number axis," and simply "axis" are the same mathematical objects.)

You claim below that asking a question is not an attack, but surely someone as knowledgeable as you understands that context matters. If I make a mistake and someone asks me, "Are you an idiot?" they are clearly insulting me. Social interaction is not as black and white as mathematical formalism. You may not have intended to insult anyone, but at least three editors have perceived your statements as insulting.

I notice that this topic seems to be a focus for you. May I ask what makes it worth all this headache? I can't imagine that dealing with all of this is your idea of fun! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EducatedRedneck School children, our future mathematicians and scientists, are incredibly valuable to society. They cannot be compared to vandals who do not even know number lines and number axes are two different names for the same thing. Persianwise (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is an example of where what you said comes off as an insult, calling other good faith editors vandals (and thus ascribing to them malintent). You're aware that WP:NOTVAND outlines the specific definition Wikipedia uses for vandalism, right?

While I agree with you re: the value of schoolchildren, I also assume you can see how someone comparing you to a schoolchild in reference to your level of knowledge is insulting. If you cannot see that, then I worry about your compatiblity with this community, for which acting civil is required, regardless of intent.EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your demand to provide evidence for what is plainly obvious is evidence in and of itself. Wikipedia is not here for you to endlessly pepper talk pages with leading questions that you endlessly repost when you're not satisfied with the response. Your style of argumentation is not welcome here: you are expected to discuss, not interrogate. Since you insist on examples of your personal attacks:

Special:Diff/1175973962, in which you accuse another user of lacking "sufficient mathematical knowledge" to understand the topic, and further accuse them of "sabotaging" the article.
Special:Diff/1176941167, same
This whole section which you titled "You are involved in encouraging incompetent editors to engage in edit warring"
Special:Diff/1177627767, calling users you are in a dispute with "antisocial"; when an uninvolved user tried to explain to you why that was not allowed you called them "antisocial" too.
Special:Diff/1194359368, restoring your challenged edit again with an edit summary describing it as something that "is a well-known fact, even among pupils in secondary school". You then repeated the insult on the talk page.
These notices you added to this page, accusing everyone who edited between them of making false allegations.
Special:Diff/1194577943, accusing me, just a few minutes ago, of collusion with the editors you're in the dispute with. Ironic to demand I produce evidence after making this entirely baseless accusation.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector Your collaboration with editors disrupting Wikipedia's improvement is undeniable. The edit-warring, personal attacks, and antisocial behavior you mentioned perfectly describe user:D.Lazard, user:JBW, user:Jacobolus, and user:EducatedRedneck. Unbiased administrators with sound judgment will recognize these individuals as the true culprits of this disruption, stemming from their ignorance of a fundamental concept: the interchangeable nature of the terms number line, number axis, and simply axis. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that someone possessing genuine mathematical knowledge, be it a professional mathematician or an individual with sufficient understanding, would engage in such disruptive edit-warring. In light of this evidence, we urge you to correct your statement and enact appropriate sanctions against the identified individuals who initiated edit-warring and subsequently engaged in further unacceptable behavior. Persianwise (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! everybody is wrong but Persianwise, who is able to decide alone what is mathematical truth, and to judge everybody's behavior, conduct and competence. I call this megalomania (I know that this is a personal attack, but enough is enough). D.Lazard (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your statement, "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus,"

you imply that this approach would be effective if applied to others currently vandalizing the article. This suggests a possible connection or collaboration between you and these individuals. Persianwise (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector Do you know the mathematical fact that number lines are another name for axes?

Jacobolus and his associates do not know it. If you agree with them then you are complicint too.

Did you know the mathematical fact that number lines are another name for axes?

Jacobolus and his associates seem unaware of it. If you agree with them, then you would be complicit as well. Persianwise (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persianwise, I don't know how else to get it through to you to knock off the personal attacks. Do you know what a personal attack is? We have a page just on that, I suggest you read it. Wikipedia will not tolerate editors who can't edit without insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with them, such as repeating things like "do you know that ..." and comparing editors to schoolchildren. Stop it now, I'm not going to warn you again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector Certainly, asking questions about someone's knowledge is not in itself a personal attack. Imagine a talk show host asking a celebrity 'Do you know where your character learned this skill?' This type of question isn't an attack, but rather an invitation to engage in deeper conversation and reveal insights. Persianwise (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, as you did many times, asking to professonal mathematicians whether they know mathematics taught to childrens is definitively a personal attack. You could argue that you do not know which editors are mathematicians, but, if you look on user contributions of the other editors, or if you have some common sense, or if you really know mathematics, you will immediately know which editors are mathematicians. D.Lazard (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is no personal attack to ask questions. It is a personal attack, however, to pester someone about knowledge in a topic in which you have already declared them incompetent. There is a difference between, as examples, "Can you describe a Cartesian coordinate system?", and "Even a school student understands Cartesian coordinates, why don't you?" Your questions have been very much the latter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that questioning someone's knowledge about a scientific discipline is a personal attack, even when they demonstrably lack the relevant expertise? D.Lazard and Jacobolus seem to misunderstand the nature of mathematics by claiming that mathematical facts in Wikipedia articles require consensus. This is demonstrably false. Just as elementary school students learn that 1+1=2 is not subject to consensus, the mathematical fact that a number line and a number axis are the same object doesn't require consensus either. They continue to revert the factual statements without providing any reason beyond consensus, suggesting a deeper misunderstanding of the issue.

D.Lazard asking for consensus for mathematical fact(???)

Jacobolus deliberately ignoring the references

Persianwise (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Persianwise, D.Lazard spent his entire career as a mathematics professor. Telling him that he is less mathematically competent than grade-school students is incredibly insulting. –jacobolus (t) 22:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You (Jacobolus) and D.Lazard both said number lines and axes are different. Both of you are insulting the knowlege of school children, our future scientist and mathematicians, who know number lines and number axes are mathematically synonym. How could a mathematics professor not recognize that these two are identical?? Both of you should be baned from editing mathematical related articles.

D.Lazard who claimes to be a mathematician falsely believes Axes and number lines are two different sorts of specific lines(???)

Persianwise (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persianwise, we're trying very hard to help you edit here productively, but it feels to me like you aren't hearing what others are saying to you. You write, D.Lazard and Jacobolus seem to misunderstand the nature of mathematics by claiming that mathematical facts in Wikipedia articles require consensus. but here on Wikipedia, things are run EXACTLY by consensus. Even if something is 100% factually true, if consensus is against including it, it will not be included, and anyone trying to force it in will be blocked. See WP:TRUTH for a better description.

While blocked, you're only supposed to use your talk page to discuss the route to become unblocked. Trying to relitigate the issue that got you blocked in the first place will probably get your access to this page revoked. If you haven't already, WP:GAB outlines it quite well. Insisting that you did nothing wrong is very unlikely to get you unblocked. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Persianwise, you have been sufficiently advised of the expectations of editing here, particularly that content decisions are made by consensus and not by any self-proclaimed expert dictating how things will be, and warned not to personally attack other editors. You have continued to tendentiously insist that your definition is the only possible interpretation, and that everyone who does not agree with you is incompetent or a vandal. We will not waste any more of our time on an editor who will not listen and doubles down on personal attacks. I strongly recommend you read the essay You cannot argue Wikipedia into capitulation before you consider any further appeals. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Polar functions[edit]

Hello, Persianwise. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Polar functions".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]