User talk:WestwoodMatt

If you click on User:PoPo Le Chien Contrib, you will see that he is a sock-puppet of a banned user. Thus he is not representative of your average Wikipedian. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to join in the discussion at the article talk page. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WestwoodMatt. You have new messages at SunCreator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, SunCreator Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...to drift away from Wikipedia and start or join our own wikis which have a more welcoming attitude towards inclusion..." — Hmmm, do you mean something like this? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I endorse it. The more wikis in the world, the better the world is. But I was particularly thinking of this, as it reflects my particular interests. --Matt Westwood 13:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proofwiki could be good, but here is what I wrote about it: "Trying their site I got discouraged. A lot of proofs of ridiculously trivial statements. And proofs of more interesting statements are often unfinished (and even stubby)." Or is it getting better? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. It might be getting better. OTOH since you wrote your comment only in March, probably not.

In its defence, that's what its intention is - everything gets documented. THere are some bigger proofs in there (check out Named Theorems) but the ratio of trivial to profound is larger than it might be. --Matt Westwood 13:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be a very experienced editor on wikipedia. It takes time to read all the guidelines and policies we have on wikipedia. You should read them before making comments such as the one you made on my talk page.Curb Chain (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to much such comments like the 2nd one you did and I will bring it up to WP:WIKIQUETTE.Curb Chain (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:WestwoodMatt

I have filed a WP:WQA in which you are involved.Curb Chain (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The dismissive naysayers have their way for now. I can't reinstate it or I'd be in breach of 3RR. Just sayin'. :)

The reason I called your attention to the archaic spelling in that book is because it was a subject of a long discussion on the SoE talk page IIRC. So it seems the archaic spelling should have been used after all. Cheers. WillNess (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a precise list of that archaic-spellings version? I'm interested. --Matt Westwood 19:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. Both Amazon LookInside and Google Books chose not to show that exact page, 174, in the book (only the contents section is shown, and it has the first line only)! I remember seeing it in this spelling on the SoE page though some years back, I think (or maybe on the talk page). Maybe an Internet Archive search will bring it back. On the unrelated note, :) CRGreathouse is driving me mad with their dismissive unilateral haughty behavior. I suspect ego issues. This is not the first time, either. He won't admit his error before someone he considers inferior to him (or her), I've seen it on various talk pages on various issues (not only with me). Of course he is an "expert mathematician" so naturally the big guns from WikiProject Math take his side for the most part. He/she's an admin too, I think. Cheers, WillNess (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great. I'm getting tired of wikilawyering. You're right, he's not the only one. Sigh.

But WP's not my main focus - I find I prefer ProofWiki nowadays, and once it's been fleshed out a bit, it might rival the best. However, I'm fighting a rearguard action against the abolitionists in WP as and when I feel so moved, and rescuing whatever I notice is subject to deletion and posting it up on PW instead. --Matt Westwood 19:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe you'd take a look at my user page for some stuff that was removed from (or was not allowed in to) the SoE page. Maybe you'll find some of it worthy for rescuing too. :) And he/she still hasn't answered you on the SoE talk page, I notice. WillNess (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might do. Mind, SoE is just another mathematical technique to me - I haven't invested the time into it that you have so don't have quite the emotional attachment to it that you do. Having said that, there's a lot of interesting stuff there (I notice the use of ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} _{k}}$ to mean ${\displaystyle \{k\}\cup \mathbb {N} _{k+1}}$ whereas I have only seen the notation ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} _{k}=\{0,1,2,\ldots ,k-1\}}$ or the 1 to k version depending on how old-fashioned you are), so there will need to be a fair amount of infrastructure work to be done and it's getting late on Sunday evening and I have a fight with the wife coming, so it won't be today ... --Matt Westwood 20:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took it from the Set builder notation where it means all n ∈ N such that n ≥ k. I'm not pushing it or anything, but if it really is worth anything at all, then ... :) My "attachment" is negative: I had to spend a lot of time trying to make sense of a mingled explanations in O'Neill article, and having the very definition of SoE stated in a misleading manner in WP was no help either. What I mean is, stating it in terms of "removing multiples" is misleading. This after all is exactly what the Turner's trial division sieve is doing. The key was to re-formulate it in terms of marking the (directly generated) O(n log(log n)) multiples on a direct-access "canvass" - not caring for the duplicate hits - and then finally removing them all in one O(n) pass. Premature removal makes direct access - using value as address - impossible. Which is the key for the efficiency of various Integer sorting algorithms as well. Which (key) insight I'm unable to insert into the SoE article now also, since the arrival of TheGreat1. WillNess (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the good news? The little poem was saved after all. Hurray! :) WillNess (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! There is a big imaginary magic friend living in an equally imaginary place supposedly composed vaguely of clouds after all, then. --Matt Westwood 17:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for sticking with the fight for the little poem on Sieve of Eratosthenes and voicing your opinion in face of opposition. Without your support I'd surely given up or were ignored and dismissed as a lone freak voice. In fact I was at a breaking point when you've arrived to the discussion. This had made all the difference!

Here's something warm and fuzzy for you!

WillNess (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thanks! I will have to find one of my own to respond in kind ... --Matt Westwood 20:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I you've at all tolerance for long posts trying to explain vague ideas, this is something that I've finally put down to paper after our last experience. Your take on it will be much appreciated. Be warned, this is very verbose and raw. :) WillNess (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid one's complement is what is always written in the literature, not ones' complement. Try a google and look. Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's in the literature and what's correct are often two different things. I have added the section at the bottom of the page to explain the position. My view is that we should reflect what is correct rather than what is popular. --Matt Westwood 08:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give One's complement a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just spent some time where I could have been doing positive work removing your inappropriate speedy tags on redirects. Please don't use speedy to deal with title disputes. And don;tuse bold moves which you know are opposed to deal with it either. The current discussion is [1]. After consensus has been reached, then the moves can be made; the redirects from alternate forms should probably remain in any case; the way of removing them would be to ask at rfd and see if you get consensus there.

Speedy deletion may only be used for the exact reasons given is WP:CSD. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.--John (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you say but in this case the contributor was being a complete see-you-next-Tuesday. --Matt Westwood 08:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let Thumperward hear you say that!! Joefromrandb (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I found a good solution to the template issue, take a look at the proposal now, it might satisfy everyone's concerns. — GabeMc (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Request for adminship taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As insults go, this one, "Don't be disingenuous. Take your socks and wash them, they stink", wasn't that good, but I did laugh. Do you prefer wool socks, or cotton? People don't darn socks anymore, which is a pity.--andreasegde (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you appreciate. Insulting is an art, but unfortunately I have a few other demands on my creativity at the moment, which explains why this one fell a little short. No matter. Wool socks every time BTW. --Matt Westwood 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to want to participate in this one, unfortunately - fun though it would be, I'm not in a position to take part in another entertaining brawl ... but seriously, "the/The" is all one to me. --Matt Westwood 07:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do this. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 17:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WestwoodMatt; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. Jburlinson (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, thanks for the invite, but I'd rather not - I'd be in danger of succumbing to another major timesuck. --Matt Westwood 21:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All we ask is a !vote and a short rationale. Please help us put this to bed. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't feel strongly either way and it's just too distracting even to click on that page. --Matt Westwood 05:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But just a few minutes of your time could help Wikipedia settle this for good, saving countless hours in the long-term. I won't ask you again, I respect your opinion, but you can't blame me for trying right? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, but I just don't care enough either about the The issue or wikipedia itself. It's a resolution to myself not to get sucked in. As I say, once I look at it I won't be able to resist reading the entire page, and bang goes an otherwise productive elsewhere page. "Come on, mister recovering alcoholic, just one teensy glass of wine won't do you any harm, surely? I'll leave the rest of the crate there for you in case you want some more." --Matt Westwood 07:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand and I feel your pain! Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rod Stewart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faces (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WestwoodMatt. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WestwoodMatt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WestwoodMatt. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]