User talk:Paul August/Archive Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Jul–Dec 2004
2 Jan–Jun 2005
3 Jul–Sep 2005
4 Oct–Dec 2005
5 Jan–Mar 2006
6 Apr–Jun 2006
7 Jul–Sep 2006

[edit] Jul–Dec 2004

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 21:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "pi"

If you must write out pi instead of using the lower-case Greek letter, why in the world would you capitalize it? I've never seen it done that way. It's always lower-case even when it's at the beginning of a sentence. Michael Hardy 22:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I only changed the title of the page because it was displaying as "&pi". Anyway pi is fine with me, as would be π. As to why I capitalized it, I don't really know. After looking around a bit there are lots of examples of Pi on Wikipedia as well as other places on the web, but I have no strong feeling about which is standard. Paul August 00:59, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category problem

There are currently severe technical problems with categories, so please be patient about your mistaken link (from the Helpdesk). Once the category problems are solved your problem will be too. -Erolos 11:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Erolos: Thanks Paul August 13:54, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maeander River stubness

Hi Adam, how much more info needs to be added to the article Maeander River before we remove the stub tag? My opinion was that this is an adequate amount for the topic, but i'm new ;-). Regards Paul August 04:25, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not sure how much more could be added...I guess stubs are kind of subjective, and it just looked like a stub to me. You can remove the notice if you think it's as complete as it can be. Adam Bishop 04:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I wouldn't say I thought it was "as complete as can be" but I do think it's complete enough. Is that enough? ;-) Paul August 04:39, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Finished mathematics ?

Hi Michael, have you ever heard of this term before? Does it have wide usage? Paul August 22:03, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have not frequently (if ever) encountered it other than in this Wikipedia article. It seems the first 20 or so Google hits on it come from that article as well. So if it's frequently used, I'd guess it's only within a relatively small philosophy-of-mathematics community. Michael Hardy 01:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of it either. It was created by the same guy who created Folk mathematics, and who both may be User:JRR Trollkien. I'm wondering if this is a made up term. Paul August 06:54, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

FYI: I've VfD'ed it. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Finished mathematics. Gadykozma 14:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention for television articles

Hi. Seeing as you were once previously interested in a naming convention, I'd like to invite you to vote on adoption of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Voting is taking place on the Talk page and ends on Sep 13 2004. -- Netoholic 23:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Diagrams in set theory

Oh, my creations are finally get rid of by you! Nice drawings, thanks. :P -wshun 13:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou, I'm glad you like them ;-) However I seem to be having a problem with them not "floating" properly, under some browsers (they look fine to me with Safari), unless I "thumb" or "frame" them. Does the image placement look ok to you? Framing doesn't seem quite right for diagrams see subset for an example. Any ideas? Paul August 13:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Since these images:

[[image:Subset.png|50px|left|thumb|was in subset]]

[[image:Set_union.png|50px|left|thumb|was in union (set theory)]]

[[image:Set_intersect.png|50px|left|thumb|was in intersection (set theory)]]

[[image:Set_complement.png|50px|left|thumb|was in complement (set theory)]]

[[image:Set-comp2.png|50px|left|thumb|was in complement (set theory)]]

are no longer being used should we delete them? Paul August 15:39, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

No objection for deletion. -wshun 15:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical Vigilance

Thank you for being alert and moving quicker than I to reverse the imaginary notion, presumptuously delivered as fact, by "Lupin" that zero can be defined as an integer both positive and negative. Wikipedia would degrade into gibberish if someone did not catch such irresponsible remarks wherever they occurred. --OmegaMan

[edit] TV Naming conventions.

At some point in the past you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). I have instigated a new poll on that page. I am hoping that this poll will properly allow all users who have an interest in the subject to express their views fairly before we come to a consensus. I have scrapped the poll that was previously in place on that page because I believe that it was part of an unfair procedure that was going against the majority view. I am appealing to all users who contribute to that page to approve my actions. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and trouble to read the page carefully and express an opinion and vote as you see fit. Mintguy (T) 16:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page has a long and tortuous history, but the short version is that Netoholic (who has gained something of a reputation for acting without the agreement of other users, and now has an RFC against him for that very reason) started moving pages before there was a general agreement, several users complained about this but Netoholic took no notice. I suggested that we hold a new poll to establish a true consensus. I suggested to User:Gtrmp that he prepare such a poll. While he was doing this, Netoholic once more acted without the consent of the majority and instituted his own poll which was configured to either endorse or reject his unilateral movement of pages, and did not offer users the chance to make other suggestions. This poll was defeated by a clear majority, but Netoholic took the decision to extend the deadline. At this point I created the poll that you now see on that page. The poll is open, and is open to further embellishment should you wish to extend the list of options. I have not set a close date as I believe I have already imposed myself too much on the process. I am therefore a little disappointed to see your name in the disapprove section. However as I've just indicated, I do not intend to impose myself too much on that page other than to stem Netoholic and his inability to treat other users with respect. So I invite you to discuss the matter of additional options, and the deadline for the poll on that page. BTW I should point out that I originally prepared a poll in a similar format to that on user:Gtrmp's page, but several users complained that it was overly complicated, so I simplified it to what you see now. Mintguy (T) 21:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mintguy. I'm sorry if I've done something inappropriate. I probably just misunderstood the situation. I thought that part of the proposal for a new poll, was to achieve consensus on the wording of the new poll before voting started (the idea of making changes to the poll after voting has started seems strange to me). I thought that that was why there was an approve/disapprove section. Since It seemed to me that the poll on User:Gtrmp's page was better, I expressed an opinion to use it instead. You did actively seek out my opinion, and I gave it. Again if I've done something I shouldn't have then I apologize. Paul August 03:59, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Data Management Wiki Committee

Thank you for your contribution to one, or more, articles that are now organized under Data management.

Because of your previous intrest, you are recieving an invitation to become a founding member of the Data Management Wiki Committee.

The members, of course, will form and solidify the purpose, rules, officers, etc. but my idea (to kick things off) is to establish a group of us who will take responsiblity to see that the ideas of Data management are promoted and well represented in Wikipedia articles.

If you are willing to join the committee, please go to Category_talk:Data_management and indicate your acceptance of this invitation by placing your three tilde characters in the list.

KeyStroke 01:04, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for the note you made on my user page. I'm attempting to do a re-author as we speak, which is more going to focus on my Wikipedia material, but is going to hopefully retain some text from me at the start. Just to let you know it's happening.

Matt

[edit] User 12.151.135.2 and Boston Opera edits

(To user 12.151.135.2, copied from his/her talk page. Paul August)

You are making inappropriate edits to: Boston Lyric Opera. Please stop. For example your last edit removed the following:

"It was founded in 1976. Its home base is the Schubert Theater in Boston.

It stages three to four productions a year with promising young singers, directors, conductors and designers.

The BLO attracts a public of some forty thousand people a year."

You give no reason for this deletion. Why did you remove it? Are these statements factually incorrect? Removing content without giving an appropriate reason is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes. Knowingly, and repeated making edits of this sort is considered vandalism, and can result in being banned from Wikipedia.

Other of your edits appear to violate the policy that Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view please see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Some of the information that you tried to add to this article might be useful, if it were written "neutrally", in accordance with the above policy. This also applies to the edits you've made to Opera Boston and Opera Company of Boston.

You are a new user and you're probably unaware of Wikipedia "standards and practices" for article edits. Hopefully, you're well-meaning rather than willfully malicious. If so, since you seem to know a lot about the Boston opera scene, you could probably make some valuable contributions.

If you would like to discuss any of this, you can do this on the article's talk page Talk:Boston Lyric Opera or mine Paul August 13:54, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

To the unpithy person who referes to himself as PAUL AUGUST....Cambridge is full of eccentric phonies such as yourself, who like to hide behind obscure and foolish titles...Your blocking of the truth behind the Opera Company of Boston exposes you as a Goebbels-type (see Nazi Germany) You are most likely under 30 years old, and therefore untrustworthy. My colleagues and I lived and suffered through the dapradations of Ms. Caldwell and her ilk.. If you wish to continue to censor our account, we will apply to the proper authority aand WIKIPEDIA< and have you barred!!! The OCB chorus (A.G.M.A.) (From user: 12.151.135.2 13:26, Sep 30, 2004. Moved from my User page . I only just discovered it today, since it was "buried" in a table and was not displaying on my User page. Paul August ☎ 16:00, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC))

(To user 12.151.135.2, copied from his/her talk page. Paul August)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Paul August 12:30, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

to: Paul August and his crew of "balanced" POV types...It appears that you are more interested in the bland and unconvincing narrative that that the OCB/BLC/ OB are presenting on your site..they are hiding behind the lack of information, while, myself, and my colleagues who actually LIVED these artistic times, and know the entire truth, are being "edited" by guys who even admit that they haven't the knowledge to touch the material... I provided follow ups to the OCB material; why didn't you back check it,,or are you afraid to touch print media, or extend yourself beyond your butt on your chairs...no matter, my colleagues and I have the site, and will continually inject the truth, until you let it stand..., so that you will have to lose your precious time continuously editing back...we WILL outlast you!!! The artists of the Boston opera scene.... (from user 12.151.135.2, 13:40, Oct 5, 2004. Paul August)

GOOD LUCK, YOU WITH A PHONY NAME AND C/V! 02138 KMA KMA KMA KMA KMA KMA (from user 12.151.135.2, 14:17, Oct 5, 2004, copied from his/her talk page)

(to user 12.151.135.2, copied from his/her talk page. Paul August)

Thank you for replying to my message about your edits to Opera Company of Boston, Opera Boston and Boston Lyric Opera. I'm sure you do know more about the Boston Opera scene than I do. I think some of the information you have provided is quite interesting, especially concerning the history of the OCB, it could and should be incorporated into the article. But the problem with what you wrote is that it was not written from a neutral point of view (in fact as Viajero said on my talk page, it sounded like it was written by someone "with an axe to grind"). Unfortunately that kind of writing just isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, and it is in violation of the policies and intent of Wikipedia. I think you do have some valuable information to contribute, and I would like to see it incorporated into the Boston Opera articles. If you would like, I'd be willing to help. If you would like to know in more detail what the problems are with the edits you made, I'd be happy to discuss that, perhaps together we could add some of your edits back. Wikipedia has allowed you the privilege of editing these articles, and in return you are expected to conform to the guidelines which have been developed by Wikipedia, it is only polite to do so. Regards Paul August 19:41, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Young man, these days the blocks to the truth are not "neytral" If you seek to suppress the truth about anything, then nothing is true!!!..The fact is that my colleagues and I are working on our Opera News of Massachusetts, and we will find a page or two about you and your "editors" when we publish on OUR Internet..

Have a nice day...... :):):):):):):):):) !!!

P>S> conformity??? Are you a dinosaur of the Soviet Commisariat of Truth and Art??? You really do not think before you tap on your keys.... (from User 12.151.135.2 06:17, Oct 6, 2004 copied from his]her talk page)

(to user 12.151.135.2, copied from his/her talk page)

You seem to disagree with the policy stated in: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (Is that true? Did you read it? If not it might be helpful if you did, also you might want to look at: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial). If you don't want to follow this policy, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Fortunately, there are lots of places on the internet which will allow you to write whatever you like ;-) By the way I'd like to say that I'm not unsympathetic to the particular point of view you have been expressing in your edits, I think I share some of it. In fact I might try to add some of the stuff you wrote back to the articles, but I will have to do some research - can you provide any other sources besides the ones already given? Paul August 13:27, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opera Company of Boston Edits

Hi, In case you're un-aware, I thought you might be interested in the the edits going on at Opera Company of Boston. You also might want to look at Opera Boston and Boston Lyric Opera. Paul August 21:04, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your heads up about the Boston opera articles. I have reverted the changes, and removed the Boston Opera Company from Cleanup. This anon user clearly has an axe to grind; his/her contributions were highly unencyclopedic. Of course the articles could use some additional material, but that will have to wait until someone with a more balanced POV comes along. PS Whereabouts in Cambridge to you live? I was born and grew up there. -- Viajero 17:50, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. Some of the content added to Opera Company of Boston seemed useful, but I don't know enough to be able to NPOV it. I live off of Sherman street next to Danehy Park, in North Cambridge. Where did you live? Paul August 21:11, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Attalus I

Brilliant job. The Successors are hard to get straight. I hope you'll worm your way through every one of them. Thanks for alerting me! Wetman 05:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You'll find the answers to your questions on my talk page User talk:PHG. Regards

Good work on this article, I like this article's footnotes especially. Hopefully we can pursuade the Mediawiki coders to put in the ability to hide footnotes for those complainers who do not like them :o).

My way of doing fact checking is a little different, by quoting the fact then finding multiple sources. This way you dont have to have multiple footnoes after each fact going to difference sources.

As well, having the footnotes autonumber, quote the text in my way of doing it, and the ability to hide the footnotes and the footnotes markup will be good. The coders have not been that interested in putting this in, and frankly i dont really know who is in charge of putting in this feature. Hopefully they will find us :). --ShaunMacPherson 04:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Infinity

Salutations Gene Ward Smith,

I think your edits to infinity, especially your most recent ones, are a vast improvement over what was there before.

I have a few concerns though about your edits and with what you wrote on the talk page, that I'd like to discuss with you.

In your first round of edits, you deleted large amounts of content with no discussion and without the benefit of a consensus. This is widely considered to be a violation of Wikipedian norms of conduct. It is also important to be especially careful about deleting content. If it is wrong, then it's generally held to be better to fix it. If it is out of place, then it's generally held to be better to move it. Being a relatively new Wikipedian, perhaps you are not aware of this.

Also, I don't think it is helpful to call lysdexia's edits "vandalism". His edits were no more "vandalism" than yours were. As I said above your edits would be considered by many to be contrary to established norms, but I don't think they would qualify as vandalism. Nor, in my view, were lysdexia's reverting your edits vandalism. He was merely trying to undo what he and many wikipedians would consider to be inappropriate edits.

As for the content of your edits, as I said above, and on Talk:Infinity, I like, for the most part, what you've added to the article, but I'm concerned about some of the content that you deleted. For example I'm not convinced (yet!) that all the mathematics should go. I think this should be discussed on the talk page, and a consensus reached.

Also, you may not have noticed, but after lysdexia reverted your original edits, I added back your "Use of infinity in Physics" section edits, with some additional edits of my own. You have now eliminated all of my edits. Was this intentional? If so would you mind telling me what you found wrong with them? Reverting edits without discussing why tends to make people unhappy.

It's great to have another math PhD, contributing to Wikipedia. There are several professional mathematicians working on wikipedia, by the way, three good ones that I know are: AxelBoldt, Charles Matthews, Michael Hardy. I myself, have a PhD in categorical topology, as well as "a background in philosophy", so we should get along famously ;-)

Paul August 06:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how to correspond other than by editing this page, so here I am. You wrote "In your first round of edits, you deleted large amounts of content with no discussion and without the benefit of a consensus. This is widely considered to be a violation of Wikipedian norms of conduct." However, we are told "be bold", and it doesn't take much boldness to see that removing material which is simply wrong is a good idea. Can you point to one single sentence in the introduction I removed which has any value? If so, we could talk about restoring that content, but if not, what would be the point in worrying about it? I think a concrete discussion focused on "You removed X, but X actually made sense and you didn't replace it with Y doing the same job" would be where to start.

Also, I don't think it is helpful to call lysdexia's edits "vandalism".

I wrote a lot of good stuff and he took it out, and replaced it with what I regard as garbage. Why is that not vandalism? In any case delicacy with my manners went out the window when he introduced the adjective "stupid".

For example I'm not convinced (yet!) that all the mathematics should go. I think this should be discussed on the talk page, and a consensus reached.

It is impossible to have an intelligent philosophical discussion of the concept of infinity and ignore mathematics, so this is a red herring.

Also, you may not have noticed, but after lysdexia reverted your original edits, I added back your "Use of infinity in Physics" section edits, with some additional edits of my own.

I didn't think I eliminated your edits, so I'd better check. Certainly, that was not my plan.

It's great to have another math PhD, contributing to Wikipedia. There are several professional mathematicians working on wikipedia, by the way, three good ones that I know are: AxelBoldt, Charles Matthews, Michael Hardy. I myself, have a PhD in categorical topology, as well as "a background in philosophy", so we should get along famously ;-)

Good! I've not made as many contributions as AxelBoldt or Charles Matthews, but mine are pretty substantial by now. Gene Ward Smith 07:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gene Ward Smith,

Thanks for responding to my post on your talk page. I've copied your response (above) to make it easier to follow the discussion.

Yes we are told to be bold, but sometimes what one editor thinks is "simply wrong" another editor thinks is "a lot of good stuff", so we have to work together here by striving for consensus. We can discuss specific X's removed and/or replacement Y's, but much of my concern has to do with process.

For example your edit of 19:14, Oct 16, removed the following:

[edit] Use of infinity in mathematics

In mathematics, infinity is an unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number. [1]

This definition is wrong, and in particular "unbounded quantity" makes no sense. The substance was retained in the discussion of infinity in real analysis.

A distinction is made between different "sizes" of infinity because it can be shown that some infinite sets have greater cardinality than others. Georg Cantor developed a system of transfinite numbers, in which the first transfinite cardinal is aleph-null ( $\aleph_0$ ), the cardinality of the set of natural numbers.

This was rewritten and retained.

All of the text in this section was deleted by you on Oct 16th (see: edit history) leaving this version of the article [2] correct? Your edits on Oct 31st added back this content. My concerns were about edits of Oct 16th. Paul August 20:09, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

The modern mathematical conception of the infinite developed in the late nineteenth century from work by Cantor, Gottlob Frege, Richard Dedekind and others, using the idea of sets. Their approach was essentially to adopt the idea of one-to-one correspondence as a standard for comparing the size of sets, and to reject the view of Galileo (which derived from Euclid) that the whole cannot be the same size as the part. An infinite set can simply be defined as one having the same size as at least one of its "proper" parts.

Again, this was not removed, it was edited.

This was removed on Oct 16th, it was edited and added back on the 31st, correct? (see above) Paul August 20:09, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thus Cantor showed that infinite sets can even have different sizes, distinguished between countably infinite and uncountable sets, and developed a theory of cardinal numbers around this. His view prevailed and modern mathematics accepts actual infinity. Certain extended number systems, such as the surreal numbers, incorporate the ordinary (finite) numbers and infinite numbers of different sizes.

Ditto.

Our intuition gained from finite sets breaks down when dealing with infinite sets. One example of this is Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.

Didn't change a word of this.

It is worth mention that the infinite cardinal numbers (relating to set theory) and the infinity commonly encountered in algebra and calculus are two completely different concepts. In algebra and calculus, 2^∞ is not technically a number, but taking a limit yields 2^∞ = ∞. Real numbers are not used to measure the sizes of sets, so ∞ can be used for any quantity that grows indefinitely at a limit. The corresponding statement in set theory is that 2^ℵ₀ > ℵ₀ because the former term is uncountable, while the latter is countable. Exponents in set theory are not the same as regular exponents in high school mathematics, the former using cardinals or sizes and the latter using ordinals or amounts, and ∞ is not the used or treated same as aleph null.

This repeated stuff already discussed, and was removed as redundent. The discussion of exponents in set theory was irrelevant to the topic.

[edit] "bounded" versus "unbounded"

In mathematics, the term bounded is use to designate a set whose elements in a container of finite size. More formally, the set $Z = \left \{ z_1, z_2, z_3, \ldots, z_n \right \}$ is said to be bounded if there exists at least one point c (center) and a positive real number r (radius) such that the set $U_r \left ( c \right )$ , where $U_r \left ( c \right )$ is the set that contain all the points than are less or equal to distance r from c, in both directions, contains all the elements of Z; $Z \sub U_r\left ( c \right )$ . Z is unbounded if, for any c and any r, $U_r \left ( c \right )$ does not include all elements of Z.

This is wandering off the topic; if something like this is to be included, it should be much more concise.

This is the mathematical way of answering the riddle, "How long is a piece of string?" by showing that the [imaginary] string has a length shorter than a[n imaginary] string of longer length.

This is just bad.

For the above definitions to make sense, we have to have define what we mean by distance, We must define a metric to be in metric space. If it is not, the terms "bounded" and "unbounded" are meaningless. However, the term '"infinity" is meaningful even without a metric.

Again, metric spaces are off-topic.

These definitions of bounded and unbounded are the same, regardless of whether point c is part of Z, or whether or not $U_r \left ( c \right )$ is exactly equal to Z.

It can be easily shown that

If a set is finite, it is bounded.

If a set is unbounded, is infinite.

However,

If a set is bounded, it is not necessarily finite. For example, a segment is bounded but has an infinite number of elements.

If a set is infinite, it may not be unbounded.

If a set is bounded, we can define a diameter of the set:

$diam \left ( Z \right ) = Max_{z \in Z, y \in Z} d(z,y)$

Where $d (z, y)$ is the distance between z and y in set Z. We take the maximal $d (z, y)$ returned after considering all permutations of z and y.

The diameter of a set is always a positive real number or zero, if the set is bounded. It can be zero if and only if the set is empty or has only one member.

If the set Y is unbounded, we can write $diam \left ( Y \right ) = \infty$ but it must be understood that this is only a convention for stating that Y is unbounded. It does not literally mean that the diameter is infinite.

This isn't a very good discussion, but the main thing wrong with it is that it is off-topic.

[edit] Calculus and mathematical analysis

A very common use of infinity is in calculus and mathematical analysis, for example:

$\lim_{t \to \infty} \, f(t) = 0$

$\int_{0}^{1} \, f(t) dt \ = \infty$

$\int_{0}^{\infty} \, f(t) dt \ = \infty$

$\int_{0}^{\infty} \, f(t) dt \ = 1$

The article isn't about freshman calculus, even if that is where a lot of this discussion seems to be coming from. This is included to the extent it needs to be in the real analysis stuff.

Infinity is not part of the set of real numbers; $\infty \not\in \mathbb{R}$ and cannot be used in places where a real number can normally be used. For example, $a - a = 0 \ \ \forall a \in \mathbb{R}$ is true, but $\infty - \infty = 0$ is undefined. Over the mathematical explanation and by logic, arithmetic operations, those based on counting, are undefined for infinity within arithmetic mathematics for expression and solution. But within logic the statement $\infty - \infty = 0$ is also true; however, infinity not being bound produces indeterminate solutions wherein a 0 or any other solution may be or already is true if the expression is defined, which is an arbitrary task. This explanation is absent from any maths level treatise of infinity.

This could be worked up into a discussion of the arithmetic of infinity used as a symbol for a limit, but as it is it isn't up to snuff, and is misleading at best.

There are only few cases when you can consider ∞ as a regular number. In these unusual cases, you are in the so-called extended real number field, denoted by $\bar \mathbb{R}$

Good link, but needs editing. "Regular number"?

In limit analysis, we can make statements which include the theoretical case that we almost put infinity in the place of a real number, for example $\lim_{x \to \infty} \, \frac{1}{x} = 0$ . This states that as x continues to grow in magnitude (tends towards infinity), 1/x becomes closer and closer to zero (tends toward zero). The limit case, $1 / \infty = 0$ is undefined; however if x was the largest finite value known to us, 1/x would be the closest finite value to zero known to us. Here, "undefined" means that the solution is not in the set of real numbers; this only repeats the axiom that infinity is not a number.

Is a discussion of limits carried on to this extent relevant to the topic? It's not "limits", its "infinity".

Limits do not literally consider the case of x=∞ If the definition did include ∞, the properties of the definition change, and some properties that were valid before may no longer be valid. For example, when you extend the definition of integrals, you get improper integrals. Without fully understanding this and correctly assessing the consequences of using infinity in place of a real number, error and paradox may occur. For an example, see the explanation of why the mean of the Cauchy distribution is undefined.

It is important to note that not all limits, series and integrals are convergent.

In the usual ordered real number field, it is common to distinguish between +∞ and -∞.

Ditto.

Can't you see that, even if some of the above is less than perfect (which I think it clearly is;-) removing such a large amount of content without discussion might upset the many editors who may have collaborated in writing it?

Good point, but this got dumped in after I made my edits, and without regard to them, and I did not create that mess. Why was my edit allowed to be butchered, but I am under an obligation to deal with a lot of stuff, much of it irrelevant or badly written or even wrong? All of this greatly expanded the size of the article but didn't really add much that was relevant and correct.

Perhaps I've made a wrong assumption. Looking at the edit history, I've assumed that your first edit to this article occurred on Oct16. Is that correct? If so then this did not get "dumped in after" you made your edits. This content was present in the article well before Oct 16th. Did you perhaps make edits before the 16th under a different user name? Paul August 20:28, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

As I said above, in my opinion (an opinion shared by many other editors) if content has any value at all, it is better to try to fix or move it rather than delete it.

And this was not done with my edit.

you know what they say about two wrongs not making a right ;-) Paul August 20:28, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Are you really saying that all of the above is "simply wrong", has no "value", makes no "sense" and that you regard it as "garbage"?

Sorting out the good and bad would be a bit of a problem. Easier would be to try to add more on the same topic but more concisely and correctly, but I am not sure that addresses your concerns.

I am pleased to see that in your recent edits you have reincorporated some of the deleted content above, often improving on what was there before. Perhaps other deleted content might also be profitably reincorporated? I would be happy to be specific if you are interested in discussing this any further ;-) I would like to help in any way I could ;-)

I'm trying. Some of the comments about the history of set theory were wrong as stated, so I created an article Dedekind infinite, and then restored a corrected version. I've been adding in other stuff also.

You should, however, consider that you played your own role in this debacle; despite recognizing the value of my edits, you allowed them to be reverted, and then futher editing work took place on this reverted version. This was obviously the wrong plan, and that it lead to problems was predictable. I think it would be helpful in the future not to allow such things to happen. Gene Ward Smith 21:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also if you wish to construe what lysdexia did as vandalism fine, but then don't you see that, by the same token, what you did above might also be construed in the same way? I was just trying to convince you that, just like it is unhelpful for lysdexia to use the word "stupid" the use of "vandalism" might also be unconstructive. (see Wikipedia:Vandalism for what most wikipedians mean by that term, you might also want to look at Wikipedia:Wikilove) I'm not trying to defend lysdexia, some of his actions and remarks (IMHO) have been less than than polite. But if you are simply trying to get back at lysdexia, by "responding in kind" please notice that calling his edits "vandalism" and "garbage", can be seen to tar with the same brush, the five dozen or so other editors who have worked on this article, like me ;-) Was that your intention?

Paul August 17:10, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Set theory format changes?

OK, I changed A′ to A^C in the image as well.
The reasons why I started changing to A^C are these:

To make Wikipedia's notation for set complement uniform: A^C was used in the article for De Morgan's Laws.

A′ should be reserved for Boolean complement,

A^C for set complement.

The A^C notation has been adopted by PlanetMath ([3]).

The A^C notation is also used at the University of Cambridge (e.g. [4] hosted by Churchill College).

The A^C notation is more unique: the meaning of A′ is already overloaded: e.g. A′ as derivative of A.

A^C is more visible; it looks better on the page.

By the way, there appear to be five different ways of denoting the complement of set A: (1) A′, (2) $\overline{A}$ , (3) A^C, (4) ~A, (5) comp(A). A′ is probably the most frequent one, so if you want to change from A^C back to A′, I would not oppose it.

>>Why are you changing "A ∩ B" to "A ∩B", this looks better to you? <<

This way the ∩ appears centered between the A and the B (at least on my browser). Which brings me to my question: the character for ∅ shows up as an empty square on my browser, not as an empty set character Ø. Does ∅ appear correctly on your browser and what did you do (if anything) to make it appear correctly? --AugPi 22:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For all the browsers I use (Safari, IE, Omniweb, Forefox) the former looks centered, the latter does not. Also the using former which uses "non-breaking spaces" means that "A ∩ B" will always appear on the same line, that is it won't break across two lines. Also both empty set symbols show up correctly for me in all browsers, you might try changing your Wikipedia "math rendering preference" Paul August 23:33, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Red-link recovery

Howdy and many thanks for your work on that list of mis-punctuated links. The list's pretty much completed now - I'll be generating a new version of it in due course, taking all the lessons learned from the last one into account. In the meantime, if you enjoyed working through the list (or at least found it a worthwhile distraction), you may want to have a look at the similar list of plural discrepancies which highlights red-links that might be red because they (or the article they are aiming for) are improperly pluralised. Again, thanks for your efforts - award yourself a wikimedal for janitorial services if you haven't already got one! - TB 11:28, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of Ireland

I've tried to address your comments on WP:FAC - note the articles title has been changed to Economy of the Republic of Ireland. CGorman 22:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you are doing excellent work on Economy of Republic of Ireland. Hope my comments haven't been bugging you ;-) FAC can be a grueling process ;-) I just went through the "gauntlet" myself recently on Attalus I. Paul August 19:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I went through with Celtic Tiger earlier in the month - they picked on everything! - even my cute little tiger image! Anyways I suppose the criticism will benifit wikipedia in the long run. As for the time changeable nature of the article - I don't see any way around it, all those figures are relevent and necessary to fully describe an economy. Thanks for your constructive criticism. CGorman 19:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the article has to have this time dependent content in it. I'm just concerned about the problems inherent in this, and in ways to ameliorate it, Did you look at Avoid statements that will date quickly? It contains some suggestions for this problem. Also some of the words phrase which contain words like "now" and "recently" and "past decade" could be dated? Anyway I'm not objecting to this article on this (or any) basis. I think it's great! My only concern is to make the article as good as it can be ;-) By the way did you see my comment about the newer intro in the CIA factbook? Paul August 20:26, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes I read Avoid statements that will date quickly and saw your comment about the newer intro in the CIA factbook, i'll try and act on this soon. CGorman 20:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] LNS

hey there paul i think it would be great if you could edit the intro back to what it was i just don't have the time now i gotta run pretty quick here--Larsie 03:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Topological space" edit

Thanks for the heads-up about open-ended formulae - I've innocently made the same mistake in Stochastic process and Topologist's sine curve while trying to help out on the Wiki Syntax Project, so will revert them myself. Cheers & Sorry, Danog 19:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA Popeye

Hi Paul. After receiving no answer from Silsor and being quite rudely ignored by Arminius about the permanent blocking of GNAA Popeye, I have eventually written this RFC. I hope Silsor will not consider this a personal attack, but it seems like the only way to get the questions answered. Since your questions to Silsor were unanswered as well, I was wondering whether you would consider certifying the RFC? Of course I would understand if you preferred not to be involved, or if you did not feel that strongly about the issue. Thanks. Sam Hocevar 03:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I'm not sure yet exactly what involvement I want to have in all this. I do think the issue of possible abuse of administrator blocking powers is an important and serious matter, as well as a possible attempt to stifle unpopular speech. It's also quite easy for me to imagine that GNAA Popeye might have done things which would warrant an indefinite block. I've asked Silsor on his talk page to please explain to me the reasons and grounds for the block. We'll see where that leads. Regards, Paul August 05:40, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, Silsor has now answered on the RFC page and I have good hopes that he will answer the real questions. Regards, Sam Hocevar 14:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately I have to withdraw that. Quoting him: I don't feel I need to defend myself any further, as this RFC will be deleted in about 24 hours. Sam Hocevar 13:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] LNS

hey there paul i believe it was to be definitive, sorry about the late response. --Larsie 17:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clearing the air

Hi Paul,

Sorry for not responding for so long, I have been trying to give User:Sam Hocevar enough rope to hang himself which not being too bright he proceeded to do. You can read about it at User:Silsor/Sam Hocevar. Popeye and Sam worked together on the RFC and hoped to use you as their dupe in the RFC process, which was a troll attempt. If you have any questions that aren't answered there I'll be happy to answer them without delay. silsor 22:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember calling you names, Silsor. If I did, give me a chance to apologise. If I did not, please don't call me "not too bright", it serves no purpose, especially on a public place I'm not supposed to actively follow. Despite your behaviour, I honestly think I have always been of the most absolute courtesy to you. Also, before accusing me of deceiving Paul, which I consider an insult to both of us, please read how I asked Paul to certify the RFC. It is still present two sections above. I presented the facts. I carefully left every possible way for Paul to kindly decline my request, without forcing him to anything. I think it was the most polite way to do it. See how optimistic I was to see you answer. See how I assumed that Paul's certifying was no longer needed since you had decided to answer beforehand. And stop accusing me of working with Popeye on the RFC, I thought and wrote every single line of it. The only communication relevant to this issue that I had with Popeye before that was asking him whether his account was still blocked. I honestly don't think he even knew what the RFC process was before I gave him the link to the one I wrote, and it was not a troll, until you decided to troll yourself into evading the questions again and again. Sam Hocevar 02:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] no original research

thanks for the suggestion, and the encouragement! Slrubenstein 22:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] request

Would you look at the recent history of "Postmodernity" and the discussion and comment?[5] Thanks, Slrubenstein 23:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Village Pump archives format change

Hi JessW, I wanted to let you know that I've changed (for the better I hope) the format of the Village Pump archives slightly. I hope you don't mind ;-) Paul August 15:06, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to mention, what a good job you've been doing there ;-) Paul August 15:08, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Looks great. Took me a sec to figure it out, as I put the listings at the bottom so they would be easier to find, but actually, your way makes the ToC clearer and is generally better. Good job. JesseW 19:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like it. Paul August 19:54, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] fix-up

Hi Paul, Thanks for removing that tag from the Harvard science center article and marking it as a stub. The polaroid-style architecture and collections of old scientific instruments housed there might make the building worthy of an independent article, but the link was just a test I meant to only preview and forgot. Tobacman 23:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis_-_Compensation_and_Liability_Disputes

Thanks for your contribution.

Significant revision in progress. Please re-visit and comment, if you consider appropriate.

[edit] Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix

Hi, I'm trying to figure out what's going on with regards to Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix. On VFD, you wrote: "Delete This is a hoax. —ExplorerCDT 13:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)". Why do you think this article is a hoax? Previously you wrote: "If it is a hoax, it's at least 40 years old. It appears (albeit as the Cayley Operational Matrix, without Newbirth credited) via several mentions and footnotes in my 1964 edition of Handbook of Mathematical Functions from the U.S. National Bureau of Standards. That alone leads me to think it isn't a hoax. —ExplorerCDT 07:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)" Why did you change your mind? And can you tell me where in Handbook of Mathematical Functions "Cayley Operational Matrix" is mentioned. Thanks. Paul August ? 23:06, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

(The above copied from User talk:ExplorerCDT Paul August ☎ 23:38, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC))

What's going on? I misread Handbook of Mathematical Functions, thinking it wasn't a hoax. Now, after being told by several people it is, I retract my vote saying it's a hoax. For some stupid power-mad reason, I have User:Charles Matthews accusing me of planting it, or having conspiratorial knowledge without any proof, and harassing me to no end. I wish you people, pardon the expression, would just go fuck off. —ExplorerCDT 23:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry if I'm bothering you, but I think it is important to get to the bottom of this. I have spent countless hours editing, trying to make Wikipedia a better encylopedia, I presume, so have you. "Hoax" articles are very bad for Wikipedia. So, are you saying that there are no mentions of "Cayley Operational Matrix" in Handbook of Mathematical Functions that you are aware of? Can you tell me what passages from Handbook of Mathematical Functions you misread, which made you think there were? Paul August ☎ 23:37, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

You're not too much of a bother. I disagree on the importance of it, however. I can't remember off hand what the passages were, unfortunately I'm in the middle of a move and I packed up HoMF a few days ago...otherwise I would check. —ExplorerCDT 23:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blunsdon United

Hello Fennec, on Dec 13th, the FVD discussion for Blunsdon United: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blunsdon United was deleted (by you) from the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. What was the result? Blunsdon United was not deleted but it still has a VFD tag, and no result is indicated on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blunsdon United. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 20:40, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother, but I'm trying to understand the vfd process better. Can I assume that no concenus was reached to delete Blunsdon United? How can I tell who determined the result? Can I remove the vfd tag from that article (I'm not a sysop)? Is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blunsdon United supposed to be updated to reflect a result? Can anyone do that? should I? Paul August ☎ 20:17, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Dreadfully sorry about this- I believe I was in the middle of dealing with multiple articles at once when either Wikipedia or my Internet connection failed. Yes, it survived VFD. I have removed the tag and placed the appropriate note on the talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and taking care of Blunsdon United. I would have been glad to have fixed things myself, but was unsure of whether I had the authority to do so. Paul August ☎ 20:36, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jan–Jun 2005

[edit] User:Bastard Administrator

(I noticed that you moved my user page back from User:Paul August (bastard administrator). Thanks. I assume some kind soul moved it there. Out of curiosity do you know who? Paul August ☎ 06:05, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, under "Bastard Administrator". -- Curps 06:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article star image problem

(Copied from User talk:Avsa. Paul August ☎ 22:16, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC))

Hello Avsa. I like your fractal star images, currently being used in the "Featured article" template. But the single "star point"

has a problem. It seems to have two "smudges" a larger one just above an a bit to the left, and a smaller one to the left. Can this be fixed? Paul August ☎ 16:06, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

There you go. It was a shadow from the big star. Alexandre Van de Sande 02:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 04:28, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics not an art?

(Copied form User talk:Sean Kelly. Paul August ☎ 22:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC))

Hi Sean. In the Mathematics article, I noticed that you changed: "Some say that mathematics is not a science at all, rather an art" to simply: "Some say that mathematics is not a science at all" with the edit summary of "woa woa... math is definitely in no way an art". While you may not consider it so, I can assure you that very many mathematicians (myself and the many mathematicians that I know, included) do consider it to be an art. See for example: Mathematical beauty. Or do a Google search on "mathematics as art". Regards, Paul August ☎ 19:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that Mathematics is artistic, but not an art. Things that are artistic are beautiful, pleasant to behold, and consonant, like mathematics. Things that are art are created, in the physical world, and exist to be appreciated, all of which mathematics is not. Do you share this distinction?

Secondly, the passage as it was originally given is misleading. IMHO, to the average person, "Some say that mathematics is not a science at all, rather an art" would not convey the idea you and I (and the many mathematicians that you know) share, which is that mathematics is beautiful. --Sean Kelly 21:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No I'm afraid I don't share the distinction you make above. Mathematics is no less "physical" than poetry and, in the opinion of many mathematicians, no less artful. I'm not so interested in arguing whether mathematics is or is not an art, rather I'm trying to make you understand that, whether they are right or not, many mathematicians regard it as such. Paul August ☎ 23:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I could see something like, "The way you write your proofs is an art," or "Making connections between polytopes and the sphere packing problem is an art." But these sentences describe the pleasure we get when we think about their aesthetics, not their nature. Their nature is not to please, but to be valid.

Well either way, I will stop babbling and accept your point that most mathematicians consider mathematics an art. It just give me goosebumps is all. --Sean Kelly 13:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Alesia

Dear Paul, thanks for your support. And let me tell you one thing i love about wikipedia: cooperation. The edits you made were great, i'm glad you made them. Cheers, muriel@pt 15:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an excellent article, You've done a great job with it. I'm glad you like the edits I've made. Cooperation is so much better than the alternative ;-) Regards. Paul August ☎ 17:41, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Muriel, I've made a few more edits. I hope you like them. If you have a problem with any of them, let me know ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:56, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please check]]

Can you please check out Classical definition of republic, I think the article of Sparta has it wrong on the type of goverment. Please get back to me. Thanks. WHEELER 14:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re PlanetMath

Feel free to post a summary on the WP in math talk page. Perhaps even post it in a new heading to get more attention. Your summary before was good, but if you have something to add to it, go ahead. CryptoDerk 06:10, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflicts and a question

I've had some edit conflicts with you recently... I listed that I'd be working in 00 General. Also, you wrote that the WP articles are more complete on than PM's article here. I don't see that our proof articles discuss what PM calls an "existential proof". Can you direct me to where you found this and create a relevant redirect? CryptoDerk 06:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

No big deal about the edit conflicts thing. Just want to make sure we don't copy over the same article at the same time :o Also, thanks for clearing up the existential proof thing. CryptoDerk 06:34, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erdos

Why do you say that the Erdos title is ok now? It looks exactly the same to me. --Zero 10:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zero0000, what is wrong with the title for Erdös number? It looks ok to me. Doesn't the "umlaut" over the "o" display for you? Paul August ☎ 15:29, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

An umlaut is incorrect, that's the point. It is supposed to be a Hungarian mark like an umlaut with long strokes instead of dots. It doesn't work in titles because it is not in the Latin-1 character set. I'll put back the comment. --Zero 11:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry. Paul August ☎ 14:34, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conway vs Conway's, SPA, and a note

My bad on that one. In my search for a previously existing article I didn't run across it and since we had an article called "Knuth's ..." I figured that if we had one, we would most certainly have one under the name "Conway's ...". That being said, maybe we should try to make them consistent. I'll check the naming conventions if you don't get to it first. Also, just a note regarding stats, by looking at the "What links here" on planetmath & planetmath reference templates you can get some rough stats, but you'll have to manually throw out some pages (of course, this doesn't help you on articles where WP articles are adequate or superior). Regarding SPA, it looks like Oleg's already on top of that, but feel free to move it as appropriate. CryptoDerk 17:00, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are you sure?

Oleg, are you sure you are not Zundark?

Thanks for fixing my typo, I don't quite understand how this error occured. By the way, are you standing over my shoulder, watching everything I do? I'd better put some clothes on I quess ;-) Paul August ☎ 20:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Do you want me to tell you what you ate last night? :)

Well, I have your page on my watchlist, as you probably have mine. It is a bit unethical to spy on people, but I cannot abstain. :)

About the error, most likely it was a database thing. Oleg Alexandrov 20:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS I read a joke somewhere. A Peeping Tom was upset. Three times in a row, his victims did not do anything but watch TV all evening. :) Oleg Alexandrov

[edit] Template:Unicode

Hi Phil, can you explain to me the difference between, and or the advantage of, using {{unicode|∅}} instead of ∅. They both display the same thing for me (Safari, Firefox or IE, on Mac OSX). I know that IE on windows often (always?) fails to render ∅ will this fix that? Thanks in advance. Paul August ☎ 17:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Phil Boswell, Paul August ☎ 19:25, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC))

You hit the nail on the head: on my browser (IE6 on XP-Pro) ∅ displays as an empty box (“∅”), whilst {{unicode|∅}} displays as the empty set (“∅”). You're probably lucky and both display the same. --Phil | Talk 09:18, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Will this work for everyone using IE on windows? Or are there still font issues? I would dearly like to get rid of the ugly "{}" notation used in some places on WP, see: empty set and talk:empty set#The empty set symbol. Paul August ☎ 19:25, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homoians and Arians

Hi there Paul -- I posted a long-ish response to your query over at Talk:Theodosius_I#Arians_vs._Homoians. --Jfruh 21:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jfruh: Thanks for responding to my questions on Talk:Theodosius_I#Arians_vs._Homoians. I've finnally replied there — with more questions I'm afraid ;-) Paul August ☎ 23:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul -- Saw your quite cogent questions and have been thinking of the best way to respond and/or make the article better. Unfortunately I'm under a big pile of real-world work at the moment. Should be able to respond at length in the next few days. Very briefly: The two refernces to "Arians" in the article that you note were originally "Homoians" but changed by the anonymous editor; and the Homoiousions did share aspects of the Arian theology that you cite, with the important difference that they did not view Jesus as "created" or "inferior" as the Arians did. The "homoi" construction was an attempt to avoid the homoousion-homoiousion debate altogether. I've been trying to formulate a new version of the article that is accurate on these subjects without getting into needless depth. More to come! --Jfruh 01:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul -- Finally got around to updating Theodosius I, and Arianism to boot. I decided to leave out the "homoian" name, since it's strictly speaking an invention of modern historians. Let me know what you thnk. --Jfruh 06:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jfruh, I had just finished reading your update to Theodosius_I, when I got your message ;-) On first pass you seem to have delt with the issues rather well I think. But I want to think about them some more, and also read the Arianism article, before I comment any more. Paul August ☎ 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Mathematics Wikiportal

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Adolf Hitler

Hi GeneralPatton, I have no problems with any of your actions surrounding your protecting the article Adolf Hitler. However I think whenever an article is protected, it is best if an explanation is given on the talk page of that article. I have posted the following on Talk:Adolf Hitler:

Although I think the block was probably warranted, I would appreciate an explanation here as to what the situation is with regard to the block. Specifically the reasons for the block, and when and under what circumstances the block will be lifted. I think it is always helpful to explain these things on the talk page whenever a block occurs. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind responding there? (In addition, you can, of course, if you like, also make a more personal response either here or on my talk page ;-) Thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I have answered your inquiry over at Talk:Adolf Hitler. GeneralPatton 22:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Paul August ☎ 23:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to ask anything in specific if you want. GeneralPatton 23:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italics/bolding

It is standard practice not only on mathematics articles, but on articles in general, to bold the title word and synonyms thereof when they first occur, once. To bold key terms introduces a conflict since these key terms are not synonyms of the title. The best way of proceeding then is to italicise key terms.

I understand where some pages have been merged then the bolding has not been modified, but where this has not occurred, there may need to be a change in formatting. Thanks Dysprosia 00:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] en-Dashes

Too bad- they're ugly. So far as any contrast between significant and reviled, I think it's much more powerful and interesting without the dash, which seems to imply hesitation and qualification, but this amounts to an esthetic thing. Wyss 19:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Z is a cyclic group

Thanks for catching my typo (leaving out infinite) on integer. You also changed:

"Z is an example of a what is called a cyclic group. This follows from the fact that any integer can be expressed as the addition or subtraction of a finite number of 1s"

to:

"Z is a cyclic group, meaning that any integer can be expressed as the addition or subtraction of a finite number of 1s."

However I think the previous wording is better. Cyclic means that there exists a given element a such that every element is equal to a power of a. That Z is cyclic, follows from the fact that 1 (or -1) is such an element.

Paul August ☎ 22:33, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Technically "cyclic" doesn't mean that "any integer can be expressed as the addition or subtraction of a finite number of 1s." I suspect that the distinction will be lost on anyone who doesn't already know what "cyclic" means. How about "since" instead of "meaning that"? dbenbenn | talk 02:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Since" is fine. Paul August ☎ 04:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PLEASE VOTE

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 19:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attalus immortal

I'm amazed at the number of WPans who caught that piece. The interviewer picked a good quote from a long interview. That article highlights the very essence of Wikipedia; not a thousand minor edits punctuated by vandalism, but a dozen major edits punctuated by errors, corrections, thorough analysis and fact-checking. (I particularly like the fact that originally, both the YOB and the coin image were wrong...)

btw, please come to the next cambridge-area wikipedia dinner... Bring family and friends! Last time, someone brought ten guests, which outnumbered the rest of us, but it was still a good time. cf. Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston +sj + 06:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need Help

The article vanavsos is up for deletion. Can you please help in this regard. Second, I am having difficulty with Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic and am having trouble on Talk:Republic because they won't allow an external link. It was deleted off of Wikipedia, and I believe it needs to come back on. A serious mistake in deleting this article. Thanks for your time.WHEELER 18:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've read over vanavsos and the associated vfd debate, and although I think the page may contain some original research which needs to be cleaned up and perhaps a new title, I've voted to keep for now. Paul August ☎ 21:43, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Larsie

I have clarified at Talk:Lesch-Nyhan_syndrome#Accuracy_concerns -- Curps 23:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 21:47, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee case opening

I am having trouble with classical works and definitions. It seems that User:Snowspinner is out to get me and destroy all classical works.

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the request for arbitration against you. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grun t ҈ 20:19, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Can I get your help in this regard? WHEELER 14:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what help I can provide in this matter. However, I will follow the issue, and do whatever seems appropriate to me. Paul August ☎ 21:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classics link

There is a page classicists can link up on and it is here at: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest C-D#Classics. I invite you to place your name so that Classicists can find each other and corroborate on things together. Thank you for your time.WHEELER 18:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to add my name to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest C-D#Classics. However, although I'm very interested in the classics (I've read Plato and Aristotle and lots more), I was trained as a mathematician, and I hardly qualify as a classicist. Paul August ☎ 22:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NBG set theory

I fully agree with your idea of renaming Von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel axioms to Von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory. Thanks for the kind words and suggestions!

--Dustinmulcahey 19:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] table for list of participants

Hi Paul. Maybe nothing will come out of this, and I am still ambivalent about the table, but I had a little time and wrote a small script to spit out the table (the pattern is quite predicatable, and I did not even have to learn the syntax of the Wiki table). Anyway, take a look at User:Oleg Alexandrov/Test page2 to see what I've got. Oleg Alexandrov 20:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very nice! I had thought the usernames could be in alphabetical order, but maybe that's too compulsive :) They probably wouldn't stay that way anyway. So does this mean you're warming up to the table idea? Or are you just showing off :) I wish I could trade my little knowledge of table syntax for your obvious (Perl is it?) expertise ;-) By the way, after all of us taking a PlanetMath break, I see progress is once again being made, plus we have a new helper! Regards, Paul August ☎ 21:42, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. sorry to have disagreed with you on the "Boundedness debate", I was a bit concerned that you misread my feeble attempt at humor there ;-)

I realised after I posted that message you will want a sorted version. I posted it now on User:Oleg Alexandrov/Test page2. Please note that sorting things alphabetically makes some comments have less sense, as they used to refer to what was above. But that matters little.

Yes it was Perl, and actually a very simple code.

On the "Boundedness debate", your comment was entirely appropriate, and I got the humor.

About WP:PMEX. Yes, having Linas over woke us up a bit. Now I am ironing the last bugs from the planetmath update sript (not that we ran out of things to do :) Oleg Alexandrov 21:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just fixed an embarrasing bug over there, which made some red links. Oleg Alexandrov 21:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After consulting my inner self for the better half of yesterday and this morning, I must honestly say that the reason for writing that script was to indeed show off. (It is hard to fight against the sinful nature :) Oleg Alexandrov 16:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I much prefer the table, so I'll wait for it to replace the old list.MarSch 15:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Math project participants list

Hi Oleg, I've taken your participants table and updated it like so:

User:Paul August/Subpage 13

What do you think? Besides the two users, stochata and Tomo who have replied in favor of the table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, another user MarSch, on my talk page has said he likes the tabular form as well. I would have preferred to have heard from some of the more senior participants, but I'm inclined to go ahead with this anyway, unless you are still opposed. I have to say your script generated table has made it too hard for me to resist, so you are hoist on your own Perl petard, so to speak ;-)

Paul August ☎ 21:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

You made a good case for the table. And it is not hard to fill in, one just needs to copy a row from above, and rewrite some of that info.

Most people did not reply because I think nobody cares :) So the best thing to do is, as you plan, to just go ahead with it. Oleg Alexandrov 21:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS The table looks good. Oleg Alexandrov 21:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. Yes I'm assuming that most people are indifferent. I will go ahead then. Your script made it much easier. Paul August ☎ 21:29, Mar 18,

[edit] Check it out

We have an unmitigated disaster on our hands. Please check out republic. And I don't know what I am talking about.WHEELER 16:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User 65.39.159.10

Hi Sannse. FYI, I noticed that you blocked IP 65.39.159.10 for vandalism (I presume). Well the IP seems now to be unblocked and back to vandalizing, see: [[6]]. Paul August ☎ 14:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like an isolated one, but he can be blocked quickly enough if it continues. Best to report such things at WP:VIP or WP:AN though, you are more likely to catch someone there is quick action is needed - I've been mostly away for a week or two -- sannse (talk) 23:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sannse. Yes, I could see that the IP wasn't going on a vandalism spree. But I wanted to give you a heads-up since you had had some experience with the IP. Paul August ☎ 13:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Graph theory and Graph (mathematics)

Hi Xiong. I noticed your comment about merging Graph theory and Graph (mathematics) at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. This was discussed at some length here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Graph_.28mathematics.29_vs_Graph_theory. The majority view was to keep them seperate. Paul August ☎ 21:38, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Please see my detailed comment there, at the bottom of the discussion. You are first in line to be tapped as my buddy expert. — Xiong (talk) 02:55, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help any way I can. But I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this field. You might want to look here Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants, for people more qualified (besides the other editors of those pages of course). Paul August ☎ 13:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

As you suggest, the editors of those pages probably know more about the field than anyone else. Don't worry; they'll be all over the refactored content, looking for things to pick at. They're certainly the wrong ones to midwife the refactoring itself, wouldn't you say?

I have a fair background myself, but I'll feel better knowing there is another hot body signed onto this project, willing to look it over as I go and cover my blind spot. Your demonstrated interest outweighs your self-declared shortcomings; besides, you openly state on your user page that you are a topologist. If the article goes over your head, it's too advanced for a general-interest encyclopedia.

May I consider you on board? — Xiong (talk) 15:19, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I'm not so inclined, as you, to discount the possible help you might get from the past editors of those articles, as well as others on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants (did you look there?) I'm familiar with many of them and have alot of respect for their opinions. Also I would encourage you to discuss your changes on the various talk pages. As for my help, all I can promise is that I will put all of the related articles on my watchlist, and respond as seems appropriate. Please feel free to ask for my input, whenever you like, and I will try to give it, as time, interest and expertise allow. Also I will be away for the next three weeks, on vacation. Happy editing. Paul August ☎ 15:38, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, as for saying on my user page that I am a topologist (actually it says "Alleged Categorical Topologist"), that's true, however notice it also says that I was "Once Considered Talented", the operative word being once. Paul August ☎ 16:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't discount help from former editors; I think such would be readily forthcoming, but worse than useless. After all, their best efforts got us here, and this is not a Good Place. Mathematical competence negatively correlates with clear technical writing skills. Mathematicians (how well I know!) are trained to enumerate every single special case and use language they believe to be absolutely precise and accurate. Technical writers learn that most readers are unable to follow complex logical constructions and that, for a general readership, some quibbles must be glossed over.

Steven Hawking wrote (in A Brief History of Time) he was advised that every equation he included in a book intended for a general audience would cut his sales in half; therefore he resolved to present, in no little detail, the state of the art in cosmology (including his own significant contributions) without any equations at all. He reluctantly included Einstein's famous statement of the equivalence of mass and energy, but otherwise got along without.

Former editors will make their contributions to the refactored work after it is "live", I have no doubt. There is no point in watching the existing pages, unless you want to see what Someone else is doing to it. I plan to develop the refactoring entirely on a set of my user pages and have you look over it before I cast it loose.

Enjoy your vacation -- or, if you should read this on your return, Yay! Now get back to work. — Xiong (talk) 03:30, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject mathematics

Hello Paul,

The informations in the table are correct, thanks for the links. I have a lot of work to do these months (finishing undergraduate studies, finding grants for Ph.D), so I won't be much around (today I went to wiki only to check something, not to contribute). I'll return later :-) Chopinhauer 00:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vacation?

Help! Somebody highjacked Paul's account while he is on vacation, and doing all kinds of things in here! Or is it a clerverly devised bot Paul wrote? :) Or does Paul mean this is what vacation means, away from work, able to concentrate on Wikipedia full time? Oleg Alexandrov 17:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm just nervously doing a little editing while waiting till it's time to go to the airport, and then it's off to Sicily ;-) Paul August's Bot ☎

Welcome back! Hope you had a good time, and are now ready to plounge back in the virtual world. :) Oleg Alexandrov 19:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm back, but I'm a bit addled, so "plounge" sounds about right ;-) Paul August ☎ 22:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revolver

Hi, thanks for the kind words. I've done some anonymous editing recently, mainly with category theory (I'm the user who added a bunch of stuff about n-categories and created the new category article. I'll probably return. I needed a little breather. Despite my concerns about the project, it's clear it's going to continue on and grow indefinitely, so it's probably not morally tenable to take the position of avoidance.

What sent me over the edge was the accusation of being racist by another user (indirectly...but it was clear I was an intended recipient of the charge). This was a reaction to my comments at African-American, where I pointed out that there was not a real 100% concensus on the meaning of the term, and that in any case, regardless of whether one chooses to use it or not, it's not entirely neutral and its meaning is contested by some people and cannot be completely disentangled from politics. I went on to point out some logical discrepancies with the term (e.g. many African-Americans have family that have lived in America for centuries, yet we don't call whites "European-Americans" or Hispanics "Spanish-Americans", the term is meant to refer to black Americans who descend from slaves, but then "African-American" is a bit of a misnomer, since not all black Americans descended from slaves are considered "African-American" (e.g. those who migrate from Central America are usually identified by their Central American country of origin), not all Africans (not even all black Africans) living in America are descended from slaves, and under this definition, a black African who migrates to America today is not considered "African-American", so clearly the term is confusing at the least. Nevertheless, for pointing out these facts, I was accused of being "racist".

I have had much less problems editing math articles, so I may come back to this first. The problem of anti-elitism has to be addressed...if Wikipedia doesn't turn around and become a bit more elitist in some fashion, it's going to alienate a lot of academics who were trained in some minimum standards for scholarly work. At the moment, it's possible for someone to present sufficient proof of a claim of fact or conclusion, and yet have it disregarded or eliminated for political reasons. Even more troublesome are issues where bias is extremely subtle, say at the article Galileo. There's been an attempt here to at least introduce the fact that Galilieo was a practising astrologer, that this is something that should be examined in relation to his general contributions, and that there is some issue about his opinions and beliefs about astrology. Yet, the article remains written from the POV of 20th-century science, as scientists get queasy at the idea of even connecting Galileo with astrology in any way. Even the point of not even acknowledging the fact that he drew astrological charts, taught astrology to medical students, and was considered by contemporaries as a working astrologist. (These are just facts, although they should be explained with background of the meaning of the word "astrologist".) This stuff is eliminated on the view that "he only did it for money" or "that's not what's important about him" or some other justification. The point is, this aspect of his life and work get systematically shut out, and it's argued that even mentioning the issue is POV.

I notice you work in category theory! I'm working with John Baez at the moment, writing up some of his "tale of n-category" notes into LaTeX and pdf form for better reading. This stuff is really interesting!

Revolver (not logged in)

[edit] Simplex algorithm and Downhill simplex method

Thanks for linking these articles; I had never seen the latter. It does raise the question though what to do with the articles. I see two possibilities: either to have two separate pages dedicated to the simplex algorithm in LP and the Nelder-Mead/downhill simplex method, or to merge the articles. Prima facie, I prefer the first option as they are different algorithms. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

By the way, do you know how widespread the term downhill simplex method is? I only knew Nelder-Mead simplex method, but numerical optimization is not quite my field. -- Jitse Niesen 10:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not my field at all! I just discovered the "downhill simplex method" article yesterday (it was called just "downhill simplex" at the time). What I "know" about it is just from a little Googleing ;-). But from what I was able to find out "downhill simplex method" seems to be (on the internet at least) the more common name for the "Nelder-Mead simplex method". And, for what it is worth, I would agree that Simplex algorithm and Downhill simplex method should be separate articles.

By the way I discovered "downhill simplex" while looking into Pearson distribution (they were created by the same editor), which demonstrates that one of the best ways to get a valid stub expanded is to list it on VFD ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skeleton

See what you think, and add/change anything that you think might help. Revolver 22:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elagabalus

Sorry, to post here but I wasn't sure you'd see it on the subpage since it seems rather neglected, at least in regards to my previous experience with Marshall, Texas and Great Mosque of Djenné. I've noticed you'd made quite a few changes but, haven't added the dab about the origin of his name in the lead and I was wondering if you had chaged your mind about it. Also, if you feel your points have been addressed I would appreciate your support. (You may move or copy my post to the nomination page.) Thanks. -JCarriker 16:34, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haham hanuka

Please add your comments and sign your name in one of the sections. Thanks. --brian0918 ™ 21:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] footnotes..

Thanks for the reply. I've just put a response/question. I think it's good we're both coming up with the same idea in parallel (and great that more people are working on this). Although in the long term we should try to get fewer types of footnotes and agree everything (so we don't confuse people), in the short term, we need to get experience with the advantages and problems of different systems. I don't think we can come up with a template based footnote system which is perfect (though let's hope), but at least we can make very good prototypes which will let us keep the information for the future and know how a proper system should look when built into mediawiki. Mozzerati 05:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

[edit] Move of "Mathematical beauty" to "Aesthetics in mathematics"

Hi R.Koot. Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you moved Mathematical beauty to Aesthetics in mathematics. Was there any discussion which preceded this? I can't find any. I don't think I like the name change, especially as the article uses the term "beauty" throughout. Paul August ☎ 19:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have not discussed it, but I personally prefer the word aesthetics. It also allows categorization under philosophy of mathematics (aesthetics being a branch of philosphy). I do agree that it mismatches with the article, but I'd think it would be better to change the article than the title.

--R.Koot 20:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rudy thanks for your reply. I'm afraid I don't agree with your move. Aesthetics and beauty are not synonyms. Aesthetics might roughly be defined as the theory of beauty. Changing the article to match the title is backwards. The title should match the article, not the other way around. The article is about mathematical beauty, not aesthetics in mathematics. Titling the article "Mathematical beauty" does not prevent it from being classified under "philosophy of mathematics". I'm going to move it back. If you want to try to gain a consensus for moving it to "aesthetics in mathematics" I suggest you make a case on either the article's talk page or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Paul August ☎ 20:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thank you for stepping in. I was hoping for someone with a clear, levelheaded mind. When i looked at your homepage i liked what i saw and i would like to nominate you for admin. (This is the first time i'm proposing this to anyone, so i'll have to get acquainted with the process.) Would that be something you might consider? — Sebastian (talk) 00:17, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Paul, I was thinking of the same thing these days. Looking forward to a positive answer. :) Oleg Alexandrov 00:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Sebastian, Oleg. Sure, either of you can nominate me, if you like. It will mean more grunt work, which is good for the soul, I suppose. (Paul goes looking for his bucket and mop …) Paul August ☎ 03:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's out - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Paul_August. Good luck! Sebastian (talk) 22:22, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

[edit] List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy

As per my reply to you on WP:FLC, I'm seriously thinking of starting this next week. Any help you could give would be great. The Cantos list took me months. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:42, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I might try to help out. I've only got a copy of the Inferno. And that's the only part I've read. It is a verse translation and introduction by Allen Mandelbaum (Bantam 1980). Plus I've no expertise at all in this or related fields. But I would suppose most of it will just be digging around. I'll see how it goes. Paul August ☎ 13:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I have an ancient 3-volume bilingual pocket edition (Temple Classics published 1900 - 1905 and used by Joyce, Eliot, Yeats, Beckett and Pound) which has a goodish set of notes. With any luck, there'll be Wikipedia articles on a lot of the people, places and mythological figures involved to help with further information. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've made a very small start at User:Filiocht/List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox colors

I noticed you had some objections to the color scheme used for the language infoboxes, and you made a comment about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. Though I certainly encourage discussion about this, I think that your critical comment was somewhat misplaced. I recommend that you bring it up at the talk page instead.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Peter, I thought I was on the talk page. My mistake, of course my comment was misplaced there, I've removed it. I will bring it up on the talk page. Again sorry. Paul August ☎ 17:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Venn diagram

Paul, I was wondering if you might have time to do a Venn diagram for the disjoint union of two sets, similiar to your other ones (e.g. Image:Venn A union B.png). I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure what tools you used; it would be better if we had a consistent look. Thanks. -- Fropuff 21:10, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Well I made those Venn diagrams in a kinda klugey way. I don't really have very good drawing tools available. I'd be willing give it a try, but I can't visualize how to represent the (general) disjoint union with a Venn diagram. If you mean the union of say two disjoint sets, then of course two filled in non-intersecting circles would work. But for the general case of the disjoint union of say two possibly non-disjoint sets, then I don't see how to represent that. By the way thanks for your vote in support of my admin nomination. Paul August ☎ 00:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking of the disjoint union of two (disjoint) sets represented by two nonintersecting circles labeled A and B. The point would be to visually highlight the difference between a disjoint union and a general union. -- Fropuff 00:33, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! Sjakkalle 13:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Same here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And here too. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations. A mastery of maths and an interest in Dante; I can just about manage the poetry and some basic adding and subtracting. Here's to an end of the two cultures approach to life. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Mathematics is just another kind of poetry, The Two Cultures are really one. Paul August ☎ 13:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. In the words of Thomas Campion, "Poesy in all kind of speaking is the chiefe beginner, and maintayner of eloquence, not only helping the eare with the acquaintance of sweet numbers, but also raysing the minde to a more high and lofty conceite." Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Many thanks for catching the little obscenity left by some fool on the iBook page. I'm currently working on it, would of probably missed it otherwise! --Chris Saribay 02:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Paul August ☎ 03:32, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematicians

Hi Paul. I noticed that you are considering making a list of categories of mathematicians. So I thought I would give you the list I have. It is a couple of months old, and it might not be of use to you, but it might avoid some duplicate work if you plan to do anything about that. See User:Oleg_Alexandrov/Test_page. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 03:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Oleg. I've copied over your file. I'm was just foolin around a bit. Trying to figure out the category scheme for mathematicians. Don't know what if anything will come of it. Paul August ☎ 04:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geography of India

I've made sure that the bookmark links match and resorted the references. Has this taken care of your objection? =Nichalp (Talk)= 15:11, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've responded on WP:FAC. Paul August ☎ 15:49, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kennan

A references section has been added in addition to the notes. [7] JBurnham 21:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've responded on WP:FAC. Paul August ☎ 01:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "rf" template

Hi ABCD, I noticed you edited Template:rf to remove the "plainlinks" bit. Thanks, that was some leftover cruft copied from a previous version of the "ref" template, which uses external links. Out of curiosity, how did you come across this template, are you using it? I wasn't aware anyone else was aware of this template but me. Paul August ☎ 20:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I actually found it by searching for plainlinks, adjusting some to use plainlinksneverexpand. – AB CD 17:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 18:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] question about compactifications

# The category HComp of all compact Hausdorff spaces is a full reflective subcategory of Top; the Stone-Čech compactifications serve as the reflections.

I wrote this in the article category of topological spaces. I read it in an essay in Categorical Perspectives, but it seems wrong, shouldn't it be a full reflective subcategory of Tych, all Tychonoff spaces?? Revolver 12:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think you are correct. A space has a compactification iff it is Tychonoff. Paul August ☎ 16:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Revolver, I've looked again at the question you asked about whether the "category HComp of all compact Hausdorff spaces is a full reflective subcategory of Top; the Stone-Čech compactifications serve as the reflections." As I said a top space needs to be Tychonoff to have a compactification. Nevertheless, HComp is a full reflective subcategory of Top, the reflections are just not the Stone-Čech compactifications. As you said HComp is a full reflective subcategory of Tych. But Tych is a full reflective subcategory of Top. It follows that HComp is a full reflective subcategory of Top. If X is a top space, then its HComp-reflection, would be the Stone-Čech compactifications of the Tych-reflection of X. I hope this clears things up a bit. Paul August ☎ 02:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the clarification! Revolver 13:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

Just letting you konw that I've replied to your message on my talk page. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 15:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin help needed

Hi Paul. I want to ask you a favor. Somebody moved gradient to gradient (calculus). This was done without discussion, and without disambiguating the links. I think this is one of those situations in which gradient better stay what it was before; besides the other meaning now put in the gradient disambig page is also mathematical.

So, I wonder if you would agree with me that the thing needs to be moved back, and if yes, if you could do the move (since you have the admin powers). Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 19:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Oleg. I agree that gradient (calculus) should be moved back. But I'm not sure that Gradient qualifies as a speedy delete. I have asked CryptoDerk for advice. Paul August ☎ 20:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and move it back like it was. Throw a line at the top of the gradient article stating that it also is used with respect to hills, etc. For that person to move the gradient article to gradient (calculus) and then put a disambig page that isn't really a disambig page, all without discussing it, then on top of all that not fix the redirect is really stupid. CryptoDerk 20:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ok I've moved gradient (calculus) back to gradient. Oleg you want to write something on the talk page about the move? Paul August ☎ 21:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Thanks. I wrote something on Talk:gradient and made a gradient (disambiguation) page listing the two meanings. Would you mind putting gradient on your watchlist, in case there is further discussion on the subject? Thanks a lot. Oleg Alexandrov 23:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help. It's on my watch list. Paul August ☎ 00:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dante "Fixed"

Sorry for the oversight. Farinata degli Uberti appears in Canto X of the Commedia. Now it should be all right. Thanks for your feedback.

Thanks for fixing my stupid Plato/Ari mix up. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15

05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome, (as long as you find and fix all my stupid mistakes, see Talk:List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy#Consistent line numbers) Paul August ☎ 15:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul: My line numbers must remain unknown until I find or receive an appropriate edition of the meisterwerk. I am working from Cary's translation—coincidentally, this being the only volume of The Harvard Classics not boxed in the store room that holds most of my books. A comparison with an online Italian text suggests that Cary respected the line structure of the original but I cannot be sure and I would prefer to wait until I have a parallel text. And, while I am here, thank you for supporting my RFA—lax line citation being no impediment, it seems.—Theo (Talk) 20:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem, Theo. When I get my copy of Purgitorio I will try to add them. And your welcome, I'm sure you'll wear adminship with style ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] poll

Poll There is a poll in the talk page of Macedonian Slavs article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonian without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story. I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies.

[edit] Limbo

Damn! Just an oversight. Back to Limbo I go. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Islam article

Paul, I think it would be a good idea to check into the talk page of Islam and explain what you're doing. This is one of the most-edited, most vandalized articles in Wikipedia, and people tend to react very strongly to unilateral changes. I don't see anything wrong with anything you've done so far -- in fact, I just put in a whole bunch of my OWN changes, which went a bit further -- but communicating would make good Wiki-political sense. Zora 09:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Zora, I've replied on the Islam talk page. Paul August ☎ 13:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] brilliant prose/temp

Hi Dan. Is the page Wikipedia:Brilliant prose/temp still needed/useful? Paul August ☎ June 29, 2005 19:54 (UTC)

not really useful, no. (Unsigned by DanKeshet at 21:32, June 29, 2005 (UTC))

You want to submit it to vfd then? Paul August ☎ June 29, 2005 22:13 (UTC)

[edit] Jul–Sep 2005

[edit] Baire space

The rewording is good, except that in my experience "relative topology" is more usual than "subspace topology" --Trovatore 1 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I'm glad you liked the rewording. Feel free to change "subspace" back to "relative". I changed it to "subspace" because that seemed to me like the more common and more likely to be understood term, especially by the general reader. That this is so is confirmed somewhat by the fact that Wikipedia's article is called "subspace topology" and "relative topology" redirects to it. However, I've just noticed that Willard's General Topology uses "relative", Bourbaki's General Topology, uses "induced" and Steen and Seebach's Counterexamples in Topology has "... is called the induced (or relative or subspace) topology ...". In my experience all three terms are (or were) common, but It has been many years since I was a practicing topologist (or mathematician for that matter), so I may be unfamiliar with current usage. Are you saying that you think "relative" is more usual in the context of the Baire space, or in general? I think I will ask some of my topologist friends what they think. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia and our Mathematics Project — Paul August ☎ July 1, 2005 13:43 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics

Hi Paul, there seem to be a lot of requests with very few google hits. I started removeing some of them, but this may not have been such a good idea. Any thoughts? --MarSch 1 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Well I guess I'd be inclined to just leave them. Somebody thought they were important, and Google isn't all that reliable as a measure of notability, and besides they do little harm there. I would just remove those which have articles. Paul August ☎ July 1, 2005 22:20 (UTC)

[edit] Your sig

Are you aware that your sig contains an extraneous space after your name in the link to your user page? (...August|Paul August ]] [[User_talk...) - dcljr (talk) 2 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)

I had just noticed this myself recently. I've changed it now. Paul August ☎ July 2, 2005 02:46 (UTC)

[edit] List of mathematical functions

Hi Paul. You are doing great work at List of mathematical functions. However, I am surprised to see things like injective function and additive function appearing there. To me, they seem more like properties of functions than functions themselves. Listing them also seems at odds with the introduction of the article (though we can of course always change the introduction). I am reluctant to remove them and destroy your hard work, but perhaps you could give it a thought? I think that at the least, they should be listed in a separate section. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jitse. As I added these functions, I have considered this question, although, the more I think about it, the more I think that the "distinction" between these "functions" and the others is hard to make clearly. Most of the entries in this list represent classes of functions, and so could be considered a property rather than a function. If we were to move these entries into a separate section, I'd be interested to know what you think we should call it, and which entries would you move there? In any case, these "functions" belong somewhere, in this list — or perhaps some other list. Feel free to move these to whatever section you like. I'd be very interested in your (and others) thoughts as to how best to organize this list. As I'm not sure yet about this, for now I'm going to concentrate on adding things, and worry about organization later. Paul August ☎ 13:17, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am satisfied if you considered the issue I raised. I realize that even names like Airy function do not refer to a unique function, but even though it's not a black-and-white distinction, I still think things like monotonicity should go in a separate section. I might do so some time (if you don't beat me to it). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bach greatness

Hello. Don't get me wrong, I find Johann Sebastian Bach to be among the most significant, intellectually stimulating and influential too. But what does "great" mean, exactly, in that first sentence? If it means what I've just said in my previous sentence, then the article already says that - it's the next sentence! If it has other meanings, let's add them. Also, I really do think "of all time" is redundant. Please would you look at a discussion over at the composers project? Best. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Robert. "One of the greatest" (the article doesn't use the word "great") is an abbreviation (more or less) for "one of the two or three (or four? or five?) most significant, intellectually stimulating, influential, popular and enjoyed". And the next sentence: "His works, noted for their intellectual depth, technical command, and artistic beauty, have provided inspiration to nearly every composer in the European tradition, from Mozart to Schoenberg", doesn't say that — it is a much weaker statement. We could say something like that explicitly, but at the cost of brevity and conciseness and besides, everyone knows what "one of the greatest" means. They and everyone else use the expression all the time. Saying he was the "one of the greatest" represents an attempt at ranking, in this case, composers. While our modern bias is that such attempts are somewhat dubious, this is nevertheless, something that people (scholars as well as everyday folk) have continually done. And there is considerable consensus as to which composers rank highest: Bach, Beethoven and Mozart (among perhaps a couple of others). Such statements are ubiquitous. Our article should reflect that, just like Briatannica, which uses almost the exact phrase we do. Paul August ☎ 17:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, yes I suppose technically "of all time" is redundant. But stylistically, it or something like it (e.g. "who ever lived") is required. When reading "one of the greatest ..." one expects a qualification (e.g. "of the nineteenth century"). Paul August ☎ 17:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some indication of Bach's significance stronger than that second sentence, as it is encyclopedic. I'm still not happy with the word "greatest", because it's vague - and as you say it's an abbreviation, I'd really much rather include a modification of your expansion of the abbreviation above (I may try one day when I've more time). I don't accept that "everyone knows what it means" - "greatest" means different things to different people, and there's too much of the peacock and the "top ten" about it. And Britannica doing something is by itself no reason for Wikipedia to follow suit. For now I modified the page according to this bit of NPOV policy. Hope it's acceptable. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I like your modification, and I especially like that you were able to find a reasonable source. Yes "greatest" does mean (slightly) different things to different people, but in this case, that is part of its virtue. Nearly everyone agrees that "Bach was one of the greatest" but they won't all agree on why. Trying to replace it with some more precise statement will lead to problems. Sometimes (like in diplomacy) a bit of ambiguity is a good thing. And yes it doesn't behoove us to blindly follow Britannica, but of course we should pay close attention to what they do, they are still the gold standard. (I'm going to copy this discussion to Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and point to it in the discussion going on at composers project) Paul August ☎ 14:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Achaeus (General)

Thanks for sending me your message and for your corrections to the article. I was asking myself: if you incorporate text from more than one source should I template both? You see, I incorporated text from 3 sources in an article i wrote before. A smaller question; why did you change the link for Polybius. Because my source was 1922-27, while your's is 1867, so public domain (even if I believe that also the other is). Thanks in advance for your response. You see, I'm a newbie and I still do a lot of errors. (unsigned comment by Aldux at 18:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC))

Hi Aldux. The templates are only intended to be used if you copy text verbatim. If you copy from more than one source then you should mention all of them (using templates if they exist). In any case every work used should be listed in the "References" section, whether or not a "This article incorporates text from ..." template was used.

As regards the Polybius reference change, it had nothing to do with dates or being in the public domain, which of course isn't an issue so long as you are not copying text. Either your Edward's Polybius, or my Shuckburgh's Polybius would be ok as a reference. However, it is good where possible to give an "on-paper" reference with complete bibliographic information (e.g. translator, publisher, year etc.), which yours didn't, and I had that info handy for mine. (One of the virtues of "on-paper", is that there will probably be a printed version of Wikipedia someday.) It is of course also very nice to have an online version of the reference, which both our references have. But I much prefer the Perseus site ;-) it is easier to use and it has a lot more linked information. And you can provide links to the exact passages cited. (For an example see Demetrius of Pharos#Notes) In any case we can list both if you want. Or if you just want to provide an online link to that site, without listing it in the references section, you can add an "External links" section, and put it there.

By the way, you can sign and time stamp your posts by typing four tildes like so: "~~~~". Happy editing ;-)

Paul August ☎ 19:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for all the corrections you made to the articles on which I've worked; I'm sorry I keep doing a lot of errors, but I'm trying to improve :-) And if you ever think that my prose's horrible, don't take problems in mending it; English is only my second language. Bye! Aldux 12:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I don't mind at all trying to help a bit with the great contributions you are making. And you do seem to be picking up things quickly. Keep up the good work! Paul August ☎ 19:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Seleucus I Nicator

I dont now. I took the picture from livius.com. and uploaded last year. I think that it is probably the bust of Attalus I because it is replaced on livius.com. with another picture. I think this picture sould be delated and removed from page Seleucus I Nicator and put another. (sorry for bed english) Boris Živ

[edit] "Definition" of Math

Dear Paul,

In my oppinion, the current article "Mathematics" really can not be improved, since it has practically no content. General words like "the study of quantity, structure, space and change" may be applied to physics or engineering or almost anything as well, and give no impact into distinguishing math activity. What are the means of this study? Computors (quantity), telescopes (space), movie-making (change)?? What are the objects? "Structure" of what?? Next sentence "It has historically developed ..." definitely pertains to "History" section and should not be used in the initial description of a thing. The rest of the article has nothing to do with the description, initiated in the first paragraph.

This was my reason for replacing this article, and this certainly could not "improve" it.

Filling up a sentence with a list of hyperlinks can not release us from the obligation to add some meaning to it. Just imagine yourself being an "ordinary person", who wants to know about mathematics. What can you add to your impression after reading such article?

As for "discussion", then what do you suggest? Just to go to forum and ask, if anybody objects againts my thinking of math as "blah-blah-blah", then to wait for the answer? And then the procedure of collective voting, counting voices, etc.? Judging by their first reaction, the people who happened to inhabit the Mathematics section of Wikipedia first, have a strong intention to keep their positions and, unfortunately, rarely had a chance to work in pure math seriously.

A reasonable way to manage this problem would be to give a list of alternative versions of articles on each subject and to let readers (not the authors) to decide and evaluate. Otherwise, if you concentrate on maintaining the interests of these first-comers, I can predict you having neither readers, nor interesting authors. Learning about math from dictionaries (as Mr. Alexandrov), they will stick forever to the "science-not science" discussion.

But thank you for invitation anyway. I was really very anthusiastic, when I found this Wikipedia activity, but the reality seems to be far from stimulating. (Vikvik)

Hi Vikvik. I think it is difficult to define something like mathematics. There has been considerable discussion and dispute about how best to do it. And many smart people and knowledgeable mathematicians have taken part in this discussion. It isn't surprising to me that we are struggling to come up with a generally acceptable version of the article. It might be instructive to read through some of the previous versions of the article.

If you think that the article is beyond improving, then I would suggest that you say why you think so on the article's talk page, and offer an alternative version on a subpage of your userpage. Then see if you can generate a consensus for some (or all) of your version. For better or worse, Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and for a change to "stick" it has to have the support of other editors of the article. (By the way there seems to be the start of a constructive discussion on your talk page — you might want to continue that discussion on Talk:Mathematics to enlist the comments of a wider group of editors.)

You might want to suspend judgment on Wikipedia, until you have a bit more experience working with it. A good way to gain that experience might be to be a bit less ambitious in your editing. Start with some smaller edits, less likely to be contentious, to perhaps a less high-profile article. Doing this will help you build credibility and good working relationships with other editors, something which will make your editing experience more pleasant and productive. You also might want to introduce yourself a bit, on your talk page. What is your background? Are you a mathematician? What are your areas of interest and expertise?

Regards. (By the way you can sign and timestamp your posts, by typing four tildes i.e. "~~~~".) — Paul August ☎ 03:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Threat?

Is this a threat, [8], and if so can you please tell user Miskin to stop threating me, it is unpleasant. Since you are a administrator can you give him a warning on the talk page to stop with such statements. Many thanks in advance! --Albanau 03:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Class (set theory)

Hi - I am Edward Buckner, (Wiki user dbuckner). You removed my link to an article on the history of the word "class" on above page, because "unauthorative". What is the definition of unauthorative? Are there any factual inaccuracies in the article? Or would the same article with the same content be acceptable from some "authoritative" source?

Dr. Edward Buckner

Hi Edward. When I said that the link was unauthoritative, I wasn't referring to the quality of the article, which as far as I can tell seems ok. Rather I was trying to express my concern about the lack of apparent reputability of the author and/or publisher of the article. From looking at that page, there is no way to determine if the author/publisher has any particular authority or reputability at all. I would be more comfortable with a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journal. I am also more comfortable when a link like that is made by someone other than the page's author. However if anyone puts back the link I won't remove it again. Paul August ☎ 03:36, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DBuckner

I think that User:Dbuckner is the same person as the Dean Buckner who used to be a regular contributor to the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list. If so, he's a knowledgeable contributor on the history and philosophy of logic, but one with certain biases. His editing has generally brought good content to WP (I like his contributions to History of logic in particular), and I think we should be encouraging him.

I had a look at the links that he added to the pages: they are of unpublished works, but seem to be of high quality. I don't really know what the criteria is to qualify as an external link; I've spent too much time trying to find good guidance on this. I'd elect to leave them, provided: (1) there aren't any more authoritative online sources available, and (2) they are linked to from just the most appropriate article. --- Charles Stewart 19:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Charles. Paul August ☎ 03:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed links

Thanks for the comments. I've made many more contributions than those parts of "history of logic" (which is terrible in its present state, and deserves more work than I jave time to give). For example, Zermelo Set Theory, Ontological Commitment, Plural Quantification, Term Logic, Unity of the Proposition, Ernst Schroeder, Empty names &c. Also many biographies of modern philosophers such as Boolos, Kenny, Sainsbury.

I have "proper" published work (some of which is linked to in Wikipedia) but it seems absurd to allow a link to my published works but not to "unpublished". Why is my website "unpublished" btw – you mean "peer-reviewed" surely?

Yes I am the "Dean Buckner" who contributed to FOM, and yes I have biases. I hope none of these have protruded into Wikipedia or indeed any of the material that I have linked to. The piece on "sets" is simply a collection of quotes and sources, as is the "infinity" source page, with no point of view or bias. The "existential import" piece is simply a correction of a common fallacy about Boole (the so-called "Boolean Interpretation"). I have the authority of Burris on this, and also Church (see the references). Btw the piece I reference by Burris is not "published". Shall we remove this, even though by a noted historian of logic?

The great virtue of the web is the access it gives to unpublished material (by famous and not-so-famous). The idea of banning links to commercially unpublished material is absurd (and gives a monopoly to commercial publishers). Remove a link to poor quality stuff by all means. But as none of the pages I have contributed directly to Wikipedia have been removed (indeed most are in exactly the state I left them), why do the same in effect to a link?

User:Dbuckner Dean Edward Buckner

For my part, I would not be in favor of "banning links to commercially unpublished material". But as I said above, I am somewhat uncomfortable with links by unknown (to me at least) authors to self-published works. I don't think that it is unreasonable for Wikipedia to be concerned about the reputability of the authors and the publishers of material it links to. Paul August ☎ 16:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] links

You say "I don't think that it is unreasonable for Wikipedia to be concerned about the reputability of the authors and the publishers of material it links to."

Yet you said you had no concerns about the quality of the piece! You are saying, in effect, that a well written and accurate piece is not eligible to be linked to, unless the author has "reputability".

In any case, I have published material, on and off the web (check in Notre Dame Philosophy reviews, or in back numbers of *Analysis*. My work is referenced by a number of contemporary philosophers.

But this should not matter. The pieces I linked to were harmless summaries of other existing work. If you read the piece

http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.com/cantor/Eximport.htm

you will see it is mostly excerpts and quotations. Much of it was the result of discussions on the Historia Mathematica list server.

And I don't understand why you deleted the link to this piece, and not the others. The class (set theory) page has a specific reference to the problem of "set" versus "class" to which the piece is highly relevant.

I know you said you would not object to replacing the link. But I'm more concerned about the principle of banning links to material which is accurate and (reasonably well-written) but which lacks perceived "reputability".

1. Quality of presentation 2. Accuracy 3. Interest & relevance to subject matter of linked-to Wiki page 4. Verifiability

I add the last because you probably would not want even a well-known reputable writer submitting a proof or theory that was untested and required long work to verify. Whereas if someone says that the German for "set" is "Menge" or that Jourdain translated "Menge" by "aggregate", this should be the work of a moment.

Is this something we can take to arbitration?

E.B.

Hi Edward. What exactly do you want to take to arbitration? If you are simply concerned about affecting Wikipedia's policy on external links, you can raise and discuss that issue here: WP:VPP. Paul August ☎ 15:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hihi - thanks, yes, it's just the policy - why not.

[edit] Whooops

Sorry, the page I had meant to reference was this one

http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.com/cantor/Classes.htm

The link to the other one, strangely (for it is more contentious) was not removed!

[edit] Prescription

Take two before retiring.

I'd rather take …

… two of these

[edit] That's all of 'em

[9] --R.Koot 16:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahh ... Thanks. Learn something new everyday ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical reviews

Did you miss my request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics that some admin move Mathematical reviews to Mathematical Reviews as it is the title of a journal (see Talk:Mathematical reviews), do you not have time, or do you disagree? (feel free to ignore this message if you do not have time) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I never saw that request. I've moved the page. Feel free to ask me personally next time. I'm happy to help. (Of course I'd could always nominate you for Admin … ) Paul August ☎ 23:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. I should have seen that parenthetical remark coming … I am rapidly running out of excuses. I'm having some strange technical problems and RfA is rather full at the moment, but once these issues are resolved, I'll gladly accept any nomination. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The technical problems disappeared as suddenly as they came, so I have no excuse left. I'm willing to face the critism of RfA if nominated. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about the definition of "Mythology"

Hi Paul, I thought you might be interested in this discussion.

(PS - The system is suggesting that you archive part of your talk page as I write this.) -- llywrch 18:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Natalee Holloway vandalism

Wow, you are *fast*. 10 seconds between vandal's change and your revert. Someday I'll have to get that powerful revert tool. MicahMN | Talk 00:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

He/she seems to have given up for a while. Paul August ☎ 01:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigmund Frued, William Shakespeare and Julius Caesar

Greetings,

I am a bit puzzled over your revert on the bisexual people list. Could you please explain. Sigmund Frued, William Shakespeare and Julius Caesar were all bisexuals. 70.57.82.114 04:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What are your sources for such claims? Paul August ☎

See their respective articles.

Frued: His psychological theories said all humans are bisexual
Shakespeare: In sonnet twenty he says he is sexually excited by a boy
Caesar: It is well-known that he had anal sex with King Nicomedes

So of the above three, historians agree that Caesar had homosexual sex, while on the other two they do not agree that they had such sex, but they do agree that they had the sexual attractions. And under the definition of bisexual all you need is the attractions, for example a homosexual can be celibate, but that does not change that he is homosexual. 70.57.82.114 05:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I originally removed these additions you made to the list while doing "vandalism patrol". I apologize as it seems obvious to me now that they weren't "vandalism". So please accept my apologies. However, I've removed again Julius Caesar and Sigmund Freud (someone else removed William Shakespeare). For my reasoning please see the talk page: Talk:List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. I'd be happy to discuss this further there. Perhaps you can persuade me or others that I'm wrong. Paul August ☎ 18:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Sure we can discuss it. :) 70.57.82.114 20:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

See the talk page, I have finished responding. 70.57.82.114 21:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Func's RfA :)

Paul, thank you for supporting my adminship, I'm glad you didn't miss out on it! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 19:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad too. I'm sure you will be a great admin. It's nice to know some of the good guys. Paul August ☎ 19:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't look too closely

Oh, noes!!! There is something wrong with your eyes??? ;-) Func( t, c, e, ) 17:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM

First, let me say thank you for taking the time and effort to help clear out the backlog at WP:RM.

Now some comments. It is not necessary to strike (i.e.<s>) out completed requests. RM is not logged, so once a request is dealt with it can simply be removed. Secondly, when completing a move, it is customary to remove the {{move}} template from the talk page hosting the discussion, and to subst {{moved}} or {{notmoved}} to the end of the votes, as a way of closing the discussion.

Again, thanks for the help. Dragons flight 23:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks, for the pointers. As I suppose you noticed, I've only just started doing these, the last couple of days. I used the strike outs because that was what some other admins had done. Also it seemed like it might give others an opportunity to "review" what i had done, so as to make sure I was doing everything correctly — which as it turns out I wasn't ;-) — I had been removing the "move" templates, but I didn't know about the "moved"/"notmoved" templates. I will use them from now on. Again thanks. Paul August ☎ 23:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about the review, if you ever fumble things too badly, you can always be sure that someone will show up to complain about it. ;-) I have also posted this same message with another admin that has recently started closing votes. I believe he is the one you are refering to as also using strike-outs. Dragons flight 00:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farewell Fil

And our world loses a little lustre. —Theo (Talk) 16:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Paul August ☎ 16:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

But it is brightened a little by your daft edit summary about the section heading. —Theo (Talk) 17:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well you may have misread my "daft" edit summary. I meant that I was "so sad" about Fil, that in my sadness (and haste), I had forgotten to make a section heading. I see now that It could also be read a couple of other ways, one that that it was "so sad" that I had forgotten, or I was "so sad" because I had forgotten. I find all this, including your "daft" remark above amusing, and so I am, if only a little, less sad. Thanks Theo. Paul August ☎ 18:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I read it as so distressed that you could no longer function adequately: a delicious overstatement of your misery. Anyway, now that you have sugar for your sugar things must have a different perspective. I could at this point start a rant about taking responsibility for your own life … how nobody can make you do anything with speech or text … how establishing autonomy is a first step to self-actualisation … but as I type I am listening to Ellington's A-train because someone mentioned it in the pub. And while we talk of influence: go to The Coop and buy Mirsky Dante, Eros & Kabbalah ISBN 0815630271. It will not help with the Great Project but it should afford you much plesaure. —Theo (Talk) 23:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point (topology)

Your edit of Point (geometry) makes the redirect of Point (topology) acceptable. I still think the encyclopedia would be better off without Point (topology) at all, but this makes it acceptable to me. Go ahead and re/revert, with my compliments. -- Arthur Rubin 20:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok I will. Yes it is not a particularly useful article. But then it is only a redirect and redirects don't have to be particularly useful ;-). Paul August ☎ 20:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for nomination

Thank you for a nomination so glowing that it embarrassed me. Even Boothy did not dare to oppose. Now I can finally delete all those category theory articles that I don't understand. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome Jitse, your adminship and everything I said was well-deserved. And if you delete any category theory articles I'll have you shot at dawn. Paul August ☎ 02:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] compromise on Mythology article

I think your compromise version is alright too. What annoys me most is that I already had compromised with them by allowing their definition in but would not let them erase the definition, and especially the aprt that myths are believed to be true. If they take that out then the whole thing is botched, as it's missing the most important part, and then everyone will start putting fiction back into the article as if it were myth (some old version of thea rticle were really bad) and doing the same in other articles. AS it is, most of the mythology-related articles are crammed full of fictioncruft about some videograme as if it were just as important. I'm glad you are willing to help out here, as the couple of other editors involved had progressed to leaving harassing messages on my talk page and not listening to a single argument I made while falsely claiming that I never responded at all to try to justify themselves. DreamGuy 21:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you think I have been of some help. We will see what other editors think ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am happy with it, but DreamGuy did not compromise. He refused to acknowledge the plural word "mythology", showing that he clearly still does not accept that we are right. He also only included a perversion of the definition I advocated as a secondary item. The new one is better, as, even though it still gives priority to DreamGuy's definition, it accurately includes the one his opponents advocate as well. The word's literal meaning is "the telling of stories", though, and the current is a little awkward with its excessively long opening sentence that was penned by more than one person. I'd like to edit it, but I have the strangest feeling DreamGuy is going to again blindly revert my edit and say I'm doing an edit war. elvenscout742 11:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I did compromise, as your definiton (the popular definition by the poplic who doesn;t know what it's talking about, much like the popular definition of schizophrenia has nothing to do with the real definition) was included even though it really shouldn;t be for an encyclopedia article. That's a major compromise. The literal meaning you claim is false, and "mythologies" is still more awkward and less correct than the simple straightforward and totally accurate "myths", and you keep labeling my edits "blind reverts" when we should really be labeling your edits "blind changes". You need to stop making changes on articles about topics you do not understand and paying attention to people when they explain things to you instead of stubbornly insisting that your way is correct against all evidence. DreamGuy 13:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, how many times do I have to explain to you that the items mentioned in the list are not individual "myths", rather "mythologies", being collections of such stories from particular regions? Could you at least settle for "mythoi" (the plural of "mythos") or "mythi" (the plural of "mythus")? Both words are defined as being technical terms for "a myth or mythology". That way we both get to continue to see ourselves as being right (even though I don't think we'll ever be able to agree on this issue). elvenscout742 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PlanetMath section 03

I hope you don't mind. I analyzed a couple of PlanetMath references (the ones beginning with \kappa), and determined the appropriate WP article, and provided status. -- Arthur Rubin 21:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, welcome to the PlanetMath project. Feel free to work on whatever sections you like. I am happy to have you're help on the "logic and foundations", section, It is a big section, and there is a lot I don't know about. Regards — Paul August ☎ 00:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Founder Members of the FA Premier League

21:30, 22 August 2005 Paul August (→Founder Members of the FA Premier League -Close VfD, result was DELETE)
21:33, 22 August 2005 Paul August (CORRECTION: Close VfD, result was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP)

Got to admit that made me smile. A sysop's nightmare! Best wishes. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That first edit summary was a bad copy and paste, and yes I did have a moment of panic. I'm glad you found it amusing ;-) Paul August ☎ 23:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transposition

Hi Paul. Your edit to this article removed two paragraphs for some reason. Must be some Wikipedia quirck again, but I thought you would like to know about it. I fixed it. Oleg Alexandrov 02:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm that is really odd, not sure how that could possibly occur, just randomly droping two paragraphs like that? Bizarre! Thanks for catching it. Paul August ☎ 02:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Want to be quoted in the Signpost?

You were part of the discussion for moving VfD to PfD. I would appreciate any comments that you might have about the process...if you're interested, please leave a note in the appropriate section on User:Ral315/Signpost. ral 315 01:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Math

Thanks for the welcome, and for fixing up my errors with status. I'm pressing on with combinatorics, and quite enjoying the challenge! Rich Farmbrough 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome Rich, glad to help. You are doing great work on the PM project! Paul August ☎ 00:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration, rktect

For your information, I have now submitted a request for arbitration: User:rktect -- Egil 11:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inductive set

Just a heads-up -- I moved your article to Inductive set (axiom of infinity), and put a quick-and-dirty stub about the notion of inductive sets from descriptive set theory at Inductive set. See Talk:Inductive set (axiom of infinity) for rationale. --Trovatore 02:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine Travatore. Paul August ☎ 03:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Axiom of determinacy and PlanetMath

Hi Paul,

so the AD page needs some substantial revision; see its talk page and Talk:Winning_strategy#Organizational_questions. But I don't think merging in the PM article is the way to go. Mainly the PM article should be used to make sure we haven't forgotten anything. That's my review; I didn't see how to encapsulate it into one of the choices given. --Trovatore 15:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Travatore. Maybe we need a new status of "WP article will be more complete" ;-) But perhaps the situation you are describing, is that the PM article has content that our article doesn't but you don't want to use any of the actual text from PM? Rather just use it as a reference? If so that is fine with me. As for the "status", I think "needs to be merged" is not really inconsistent with such a situation, and so I would suggest simply making the status that for now, with whatever qualifying comments you think are appropriate, and after our article has been rewritten, changing the status to "WP article more complete". What do you think? It doesn't really matter all that much anyway, as these are all just notes to ourselves. But I must confess I do derive a foolish pleasure from checking one more item off the list ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the references

I must admit I did the deletions voluntarily :-( The decision came from some uncertainities I've been having with the references, concerning the primary sources. The possibilities are two: 1) Putting in reference all the authors recorded in the notes 2) Putting in reference only the dominant source or sources, like putting in reference only Cornelius Nepos' Datames for the Datames article, Polybius for Sosibius. What's your opinion? Aldux 21:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aldux. If you mention a work in the notes then that work should be listed in the references. For the sake of verifiability I prefer as many reference works and citations to those works as possible. Can you say what your doubts were? I can't see any reason not to include them. Regards Paul August ☎ 21:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :-) OK, I'll do as you say. I only had some doubts that came from generating a list too long of references and of duplicating the notes' information.

Speaking of something else, sadly I've built a duplicate article :-( I've wrote Satyric Drama, only to find that Satyr play already exists. How can I mend the problem? Bye Aldux 10:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I've fixed things up, I think. I've merged your content from Satyric Drama into Satyr play (with a few minor changes, feel free to edit it however you think appropriate). I've deleted "Satyric Drama", but I've created a redirect (do you know what these are?) from Satyric drama (notice the lower case "d", this is the correct capitalization). Also I've created a new template "SeyffertDCA" to be used like "SmithDGRBM" and added it to Satyr play. If you've used other text from that work, you should go back and add that template to those articles. Paul August ☎ 13:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Great! And thanks for the new template, I've really missed it. I tried to solve the problem of missing templates using pseudo-templates that seemed templates, but were not. Could you please construct a template for Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiques and one for his Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, since I'didn't find them in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles? And sorry if I'm becoming a bit naggy ;-) Aldux 16:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok I've created "SmithDGRA" and "SmithDGRG". Note that while there exist articles for Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology and Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities there is no article yet for Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, but I have nevertheless linked it in the template. So as a penance for your sins, you must write that article ;-) (otherwise you will be forced to look at that ugly red link all the time) And consider yourself lucky I don't make you write an article on Seyffert's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities as well! Paul August ☎ 17:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes milord, I will atone for my sins and cover my head with ashes ;-) And as further penance, I'll write the article on Smith's DGRG. Vale! Aldux 19:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] just a note

First of all I must tell you that I got here by chance, after seeing Aldux's work on Macedonia related articles and I share your interest in classic Greek. Now, why am I creating this sub-section here: Satyric Drama could have been moved to Satyric drama and shouldn't be deleted because part of the content written by Aldux was used in the original article (it has something to do with GFDL). Perhaps you can do something like that, in a similar situation in the future, so that the history of the contributions is not deleted.

And a question: I've written Teos, do we need to create a template for the classical gazetteer? +MATIA ☎ 16:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Matia, you are quire right, I should have done exactly what you said above. I don't know why I didn't. I have rectified that now I think, by deleting "Satryc drama", undeleting "Satyric Drama", then moving it to "Satryc drama" and redirecting it to Satyr play. That way the history of Aldux's contributions will be preserved, as required by the GDFL. Thanks for pointing that out ;-) As for a template for the classical gazetteer, templates like that are for consistency and the convenience of the editors. As far as I know It is not really a question of "need". Feel free to create one if you like, I don't see how it could hurt. If you need any, I will gladly help. Thanks again and regards. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice phone (☎) by the way ;) Keep up the good work! +MATIA ☎ 17:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page...

...starts off with the most hilarious statement about real and imaginary numbers and telephones. I have been laughing about it with my colleagues since I read it, and has become somewhat of an in-joke in the office. Thank you for the great humour! --HappyCamper 01:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. I wish I could say I made it up. It's and old joke ;-) Paul August ☎ 01:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attalus and the Galatians

The problem is the term "Gaul" is rather vague. Today it's usually understood to mean speakers of Gaulish, i.e. the Celts of what is now France, Switzerland, and northern Italy, but the Greeks and Romans called the Galatians Gauls too. It's clear the Galatians were Celts and that they moved from Thrace to Asia Minor during the historical period, but no one really knows how closely related they were to the Gauls of Gaul. Their language is way too sparsely attested to say whether it was particularly closely related to Gaulish. I think it's important to mention that the Galatians were called Gauls in the Attalus I article because of the reference to the Dying Gaul (always known as such even though he's apparently actually a Galatian) and because section 2 of the article is called "Defeat of the Gauls" and makes reference to "Galatian Gauls" and even simply "Gauls" in the quote. I wouldn't say calling the Galatians "Gauls" is definitely a misnomer, but it might be; we just don't know enough about the ethnolinguistic groupings among the Continental Celts to be sure. The Greeks and Romans considered them Gauls, and maybe they were right, but maybe they weren't. If you think my edit disrupts the flow, maybe you can change that sentence back to what you had, but then add a sentence in section 2 explaining that the people in question were the Galatians but that contemporary sources called them Gauls. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. It might be worth pointing out that the Greek word here translated "Gauls" is Γαλάται. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Liddell and Scott say that Γαλάται is just a later word for Κέλτοι, implying the Greeks would have called the inhabitants of Gaul Γαλάται as well. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Rehnquist

Paul, you don't need to revert the anons. I was watching KCAL 9 News in Los Angeles, and they state a Supreme Court spokesperson announced Rehnquist's death. OCNative 03:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

ok thanks. I looked around but could not find any confirmation. Paul August ☎ 03:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boolean algebra, dab proposal

I invite your attention to my proposal at Talk:Boolean_algebra#Proposal. --Trovatore 18:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sportsology article

Greetings,

According to [10], the Sportsology article should have been deleted. It hasn't. What was deleted instead was the VfD page itself. Would you correct this please (undelete vfd, delete article)? --Durin 17:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi, thanks for voting for me in my RFA. I was really touched at how many people voted for me! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. I mostly voted based upon our recent pleasant interaction at Attalus I, but you seem to be well-deserving of the old bucket and mop. ;-)

[edit] Excuse me please

Why do you keep deleting my New York article? You are from Boston you should know this stuff yourself. And I have this Request for Comment too what is the problem??Wiki brah 05:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Paul August ☎ 05:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am very serious thank you please. I am something of an expert in the field I wroted articles on Anal Sex in Brasil, Sao Paolo and Bisexuality in Brasil too. I am Jewish and visit NYC a lot and other places and I love to party in places I go in fact I did a few lines of yay-yo tonight even

Read WP:NOR. Paul August ☎ 05:17, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

A NOR violation is more a matter for VFD rather than CSD is it not? Plus its not like totally my own view I know a lot of people can back me up on this thank you.Wiki brah 05:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete your article because of NOR. Rather, since I didn't take it as a serious attempt at encyclopedic writing, I deleted it because I thought it was nonsense vandalism. However if it was serious, then it violates NOR.

[edit] 210.87.251.41

Can you block user:210.87.251.41 who has been warned not to vandalism, yet continues to do it. Xtra 03:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Xtra, thanks for helping to fight against vandalism. I haven't yet blocked the user — I try to be conservative with blocks. I've warned him again, and he hasn't made any edits since. If you think it is warranted (my opinion would be that it probably isn't), you can list this user here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or here: Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Regards. Paul August ☎ 15:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The community owes you one

Paul, you did a fantastic job. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Bish, that means a lot to me that you think so. I hope others agree. I don't know exactly what I think should come of all this, but I thought it was important to try and construct as complete a record as possible of these events. I took no joy from sifting through all these things, but I have to say that Fil's parting message was the inspiration and impetuous for my doing this. Paul August ☎ 16:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that was a lot of good work, Paul. I did get a smile out of the secret weapon, good stuff. :) Drop me a line ☎ anytime. :) Func( t, c, @, ) 16:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I agree with the "a lot" part, but I don't know about the "good" part. Especially when it comes to doing any good. But thanks for your thinking so. I have to admit, as I said to Bish on her talk page, I've been feeling a bit like a lone voice in the wilderness. I'd be interested in other's views on these matters, so I could tell whether I'm just being a ninny or not. Anyway I so wanted someone to see and appreciate my little attempt at levity. (P.S. for you non English native speakers who read this page, and may not know, a ninny is an ass, block, clod, dimwit, dolt, donkey, dope, dullard, dumb cluck, dumbbell, dummy, dunce, gowk, idiot, imbecile, jackass, jerk, jobbernowl, lackwit, lamebrain, lightweight, looby, loon, nincompoop, ninnyhammer, nitwit, noddy, put, stupid, thickwit, tomfool and/or witling.) Paul August ☎ 16:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

While refraining (with considerable effort) to comment on Paul's ninniness, I do want to share my view since Paul asks about it. I agree with Func that Paul did good work here. It is a pity that the case was closed in the meantime. I'm sorry to say that the way the ArbCom handled the matter left me with a bitter aftertaste: negotiating with Ed about a suitable "punishment" and closing the case without comment on Ed's actions smack too much of shady back room dealing to me. Nevertheless, I still have huge respect for the ArbCom members for taking on what is undoubtedly the worst task on Wikipedia, and for me, the Committee clearly has the greatest authority on Wikipedia matters of all persons and entities, even when I don't agree with its judgements. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Your contributions were excellent, and I certainly appreciate them. That said, the Committee is mostly concerned with ensuring that objectionable behaviour does not recur, and it was thought that Ed's resignation as bureaucrat, and his comments recognizing the inappropriateness of his actions, would take care of that. Do you feel this was an inappropriate remedy? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking (and while we are on the subject of thanks, thanks for serving on the ArbCom committee, it is a difficult and thankless job). I have several concerns about the process and the perceptions that that process has generated. I have raised some of theses in various places :-). But I could say more if I felt anyone wanted to hear more. As regards to the remedy. I haven't yet completely formed an opinion on that. When the case closed I was still in the process of adding to the evidence. I had planned to give a summary of the evidence and present some conclusions. As it was I was standing at the gate when the portcullis fell (just missed me, thanks for asking ;-) Any way I hadn't yet decided in my own mind what an appropriate remedy would be. But If I had to express an opinion now, I would have to say that the remedy which has been applied so far, seems less than ideal. Again I could elaborate If you'd like. Paul August ☎ 20:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor arbitration

Ed Poor agreed in private discussion to resign as a bureaucrat. This resolution was based on our perception that he had lost touch with community consensus. He remains a Wikipedia administrator and a valued member of the community. Saving face was one consideration. Fred Bauder 19:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I don't want anyone to lose face, but I still have some concerns about the process. From Raul's remarks it seems as if this had all been discussed and decided some time ago via IRC and mailing list discussions, (which unfortunately I don't have access to) before the case was even officially accepted. Is that true? Paul August ☎ 19:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Before the case was accepted there was some discusion on IRC between Ed Poor, some arbitrators, and some of the people bringing the case. We held off formally accepting the case because we hoped negotiations would settle things, and Ed promised not to act unilaterally again. After he forced a namechange on trollderella we formally accepted the case.

The the arbitrators discussed on the mailing list about the best way to procceed and it was at that point that we decided to ask for his resignation of bureaucrat powers. Which he readily gave. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] They're baaack

Hi Paul,

could use your help over at Boolean algebra. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Boolean_algebra.2C_redux and the latest additions to Talk:Boolean algebra#Proposal

HI Travatore. Yes I had noticed. What we really need to do is write the other article too. I don't quite have the gumption at the moment. But I've responded at Talk:Boolean algebra#Proposal.

[edit] Be careful

Paul. Thanks for helping with the vandalism at Fruit. Not sure if you have been following, but please check out the "conversation" at Talk:Fruit#Stupid Fruit Facts with that anon you rolled back. He has been persisting in deleting a statement he just does not like (and will not correct it if it is wrong). When I advise him (on talk pages; he uses at least three different IP addresses) that one cannot just delete facts that are true because of a POV, he attacks me. I did not enter the "offending" fact, and his responses seem irrational. His ISP is from somewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area, so his accusations that I am some kind of typical Eurobashing, "racist" American are a real mystery (since he knows nothing about my sex, race, politics, nationality). I finally blocked him on one ISP after warnings, but his/her responses to discussing why he cannot do what he wants seem way over the wall. I'm unclear where I have insulted anybody (especially the Portuguese]]. He seems to actually just want to pick a fight. - Marshman 00:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I was just on RC patrol, when I saw that, and reverted it. While the anon's behavior has been less than ideal, he may have a point about the carrot jam thing. When I read the lead, as it was when the anon made that edit, I thought it sounded a bit odd. I thought that while remarking on the difference between culinary and botanical usage in the lead was appropriate, detailing those differences didn't belong there. Now I see that they have been moved to their own section. That seems better to me. He also seemed to think that the statement was misleading in that while the Europeans or Portuguese classify carrot jam in the same category as fruit jam, it incorrectly implied that they consider carrot as a fruit. I would also guess that he objected to what could be seen as political overtones (i.e. POV) in asserting that the reason for the European trade rules are because of higher tax rates and because carrot jam is popular in Portugal. Anyway I think thew new section is much better and more NPOV. Paul August ☎ 15:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. As I said many times to the anon, I did not write that item. I was never defending the item. I was concerned that deleting something that is factual because one does not like it was the wrong approach, at which point I was attacked as being anti-EU and anti-Portuguese, then a rabid American saber- ....well you can see how it degenerated. I attempted to steer the anon to our various newbie and civility pages, but he just refused to really read anything I had to say, prefering instead to look for words he could use to have a fight. My attitude is this. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. No volunteer should put up with abusive language from another "contributor". That is a problem that Wikipedians need to nip in the bud whenever it occurs. It will drive good people away if verbal bullying prevails. Thanks for your comments - Marshman 18:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I agree with your sentiments. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Succubus

Thanks for removing that dup header, it kept coming and going. I finally walked away from it. I've seen that happen before, no sure why it acts like that. Later! Rx StrangeLove 04:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help out. The double header thing has happened to me before. When you add the closing header template {{subst:vt}} it gets added at the top of the page above the section heading for the article's AfD discussion page. And when you submit the edit, because of caching. and the fact that the discussion page is transcluded, the day page will not reflect the change immediately (you have to purge the server's cache to see your update). But if you re-edit the discussion page by clicking on the "edit" link for that article on the AfD day page, you will be doing a section edit for that discussion page which will only show what is in that section of the discussion page and thus won't show the AfD closing header you added above that section. So if you don't realize this (which I didn't) and you add another {{subst:vt}} at the top, it results in double headers. To see the entire discussion page including the newly added AfD closing header, you have to click on the edit link for the page on the AfD day page and 'then click on the "edit this page" tab at the top of the section editing page. I hope this is all makes sense ;-) And I apologize for the long explanation if you already know all this. Paul August ☎ 15:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense, I think I thought about clearing the cache while trying to troubleshoot but I don't have a specific memory of doing it so that was probably the case. Thanks for the note! Rx StrangeLove 03:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Kush" disambiguation

Hi - - Why did you revert a disambiguation by me for the word "Kush"? Whereas you may never have heard of the legendary Hindu hero of that name, many have, and are interested; please do not revert once again without looking into merits and considering other people. - Anon

I'm sorry your edit looked like vandalism to me. But you are going about your disambiguation in the wrong way, a copy and paste is not the correct way to rename a page since it does not preserve the page histories. And it is not clear to me that you need a disambiguation page in the first place since Kush and Kusha aren't spelled the same. Paul August ☎ 03:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mr.August,

Thanx for the response - - the name Kusha is spelt "Kush" by a section of Indians in order to differentiate its pronounciation from "Kushaa". This is difficult to explain unless you are familiar with Indian scripts and transliteration from Indian languages to the Roman script. Thus "Kusha" is phonetically correct but "Kush" is more widespread in some sections. I wish to develop the page, but seem unable to START with all this attention from others!! - Anon

Can you guide me on how to rename pages? I am not actually registered yet -- does the power come only from registration? - Anon

Yes you have to be logged in to rename a page see Help:Renaming (moving) a page. But you can request a rename here: Wikipedia:Requested moves. I would highly recommend registration it has lots of advantages see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. You can register here: [11] However renaming pages can be controversial, so it is always wise to discuss the propose rename on the associated page's talk page. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask. Paul August ☎ 03:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I've added a couple of divine cultural references today.

Yes I saw that just after I had left my message at your talk page. I was just reading through my dog-eared Inferno trying to figure out if we were done with 'VII, and I was reading our article on Plutus, (wondering if we should mention the probable connection with Pluto, in Dante's mind at least? ) when I got the yellow "You have new messages" message ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The silly I can live with; the malicious is harder. I really worry about the general mtone of 'conversation' in this place and the inconsistent application of sanctions. But I'm here on low-level activity for a while to see how it goes. Filiocht | Talk 14:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes malicious is not very delicious. I understand your concern about the "inconsistent application of sanction", as a perusal of my talk page above will tell you. In that regard, I should perhaps tell you that I have been taking your name in vain of late, in various places. See for example User talk:TheoClarke#The devil made me do it. I hope you don't mind too much. I also hope that none of my own contributions to the conversational tone have been negative. It is in my nature to always have worries on that score (I don't want to end up in the Eighth Circle, Sixth Pouch) Anyway I am very glad to have the opportunity to work together again. And you should know that I am always available to lend a hand with anything which will help make Wikipedia a better place, for you and for all of us. Paul August ☎ 15:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I just hope that my anti-manifesto, as it were, didn't lead you into doing anything you now regret. I've found you to be one of the most considered "conversationalists" in this place; no need for you to worry about the cappe con cappucci bassi, I think. The only thing one can do here really is to model the behaviour you expect from others and hope for the best. Filiocht | Talk 07:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No regrets so far. And I hope you are right about the cappe, I've never liked hoods all that much. By the way, perhaps I seem considered because I'm so slow, it helps sometimes not to be able to type (or think) too quickly. And concerning your last point, I agree — of all the advice and moral teachings I've ever heard, the Golden Rule has always seemed the best. Of course sometimes silence is golden too. I have a harder time remembering that ;-) Paul August ☎ 14:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to self: remember to update status of Dante list on talk page if adding new canto! Filiocht | Consensus is not achieved through voting 07:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No need to worry about updating the "status". You add content. I'll be happy to take care of silly little things like that. (By the way my edit summary of "update again" at Talk:List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy was a mild self-reproach for my having failed to update it correctly the time before!) Paul August ☎ 14:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you tried e-mailing Theo? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Not yet. I was just thinking about it, though. I will soon, if he doesn't show. Paul August ☎ 14:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza made less bureaucratic

Hello again, I have (unilatterly) taken away the 'assembly' idea, as per my reasons at that edit summary and per Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter. I have left the admin general, as some leadership is good. Now, all you have to do is be a member to establish consensus, the whole assembly idea is gone. Also, I have added an advisory committee, of four members, with limited power besides watching over the admin general and making sure he doesn't do anything stupid. Please look at the ammended charter, and I would love a comment. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer bug

I see you reverted the edits on Computer Bugs. The statement I removed was a version of the "Fallacy of many eyes". It claims that just because more people have access to the code, it doesn't mean that those eyes are qualified. Please do not put that statement back in, as it is pro open source and generally false. DoomBringer 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

DoomBringer is clearly on the wrong side of history, but he has a point; the passage was a bit POV, though of course the right POV. It could be reworded "open-source advocates claim..." or some such. BTW is there any substantiation to the claim that open-source has generally just as many bugs, or is it someone's subjective impression? --Trovatore 18:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the wrong side of history? Sure, right, uh huh, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou-OSS-Zealot. Seriously. OSS has its place, but its not the single greatest thing in software engineering. Anyhow, the claim that OSS has a roughly equivalent number of bugs to "closed source" is currently unsubstantiated in the current version of the article. Given the religious war by zealots, objectivity in this area is well-nigh impossible. I have to ask if that line is even relevant to the discussion of the whole thing. We can safely assume that all software has bugs, open source or not. DoomBringer 19:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

DoomBringer: Sorry about my revert. I was on "RC patrol" (I like to do that while I'm watching TV, at the end of the day, when my brain is too tired to do anything more creative ;-) I reverted what looked like to me vandalism (i.e. unexplained removal of non-obviously bad text by an anon) I did not mean my edit to be taking a position on the accuracy or the POV of the text I restored. If that edit was yours then I apologize. However, as it happens, I don't necessarily agree that the removed text is inaccurate. Nor do I necessarily agree with your characterization of it. My 30 years of programming experience tends to tell me otherwise. Calling something a "Fallacy" doesn't make it so. In my experience open-source programmers are no-less qualified (in fact just the opposite). And while not taking into account how qualified the "eyes" are, may introduce a fallacy — not taken into account the orders of magnitude more, eyes available in the open-source model, surely will ;-) BTW Travatore's suggestion would seem to deal with any POV concerns, don't you agree? Regards — Paul August ☎ 19:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't logged in at the time. I guess I forgot to. I'm a computer professional too, and I think you're romanticizing open source software a bit. Just like commercial software, quality is all over the board. The "many eyes" argument is just a weak argument, as I said, what makes those eyes qualified? In commercial software, you pretty much have market forces demanding that the code you write is good. Also, the many eyes argument fails for certain "open" source projects. IIRC, Linus Torvalds has control over what goes into the Linux kernal, so if he had an agenda against a contributer (or whatever), those contributions could just fail to become part of the project, thus negating that pair of eyes from doing any good. As for rectifying the article, I vote that the whole thing be removed. Frankly, it isn't even relevant to the whole article. All software has bugs. DoomBringer 19:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on the virtues, or lack thereof, of the open-source model. Anyway I have no plans to edit that article, beyond the possible vandalism revert. BTW edit summaries are good ;-) if you had given a reason for your removing that text I would have passed it right by. Oh and one more thing, Travatore expressed the opinion that you are on the "wrong side of history", I don't see how that makes him a "zealot", and even if it does, I don't see how calling him one helps. Paul August ☎ 20:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

He said I was on the wrong side of history, which I perceived as a slight against me. Moreover, he claims that OSS is the "right" way to do things. Sorry, but I have to point out his obvious bias in favor of the OSS model. OSS isn't "right" or "wrong," it just is a methodology that has its own merits and problems. As it is, I'd rather not get into a debate over if it is a good methodology, because everyone in the debate is so empassioned over it that they fail to listen and instead act with hostility. DoomBringer 21:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of computer bugs

Any more thoughts on Template:Ent? --Trovatore 18:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping you had fixed it by now! I guess not ;-) It is a bit hard for me to work on since I can't reproduce the problem.

Unless you're using a Mac, I'd expect you to have access either to Netscape 7 or Mozilla 1.7.x; the problem shows up in both. Are you saying you've tried Euler's identity in one of those browsers and don't see the problem? --Trovatore 21:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'm on a Mac (of course ;-) And it woorks swimingly for me, using Safari, FireFox, IE and OmniWeb. Paul August ☎ 04:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Some pages which use the templates display ok and some don't right? We need to figure out what is different between them. Here is a list of all the articles using the template [12], are there any other pages that don't work, can you see a pattern? If you feel ambitious, we could work on a copy of the page that dosn't work - edit it by trial and error, figuring out the salient difference that way. Maybe someone else has an idea? (Oleg? Jitse? if you guys are reading this look at Template talk:Ent for more details. Paul August ☎ 19:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The bad ones are:

and that's it. I clicked through all those bloody ancient Greeks and they were all fine. --Trovatore 04:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

So I guess the bug has to do with the fact the article is about mathematics, and not ancient Greece then. OK I will copy Euler's Identity to a user page and start hacking it up. Paul August ☎ 04:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

One hack that works: If you separate the two end notes into separate h2 sections, the bug goes away. Not practical as a workaround, but possibly gives some insight? --Trovatore 04:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

OK I've created the following test page: User:Paul August/Subpage 17. Tell me if you have a problem with it? Paul August ☎ 04:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks fine. --Trovatore 04:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, It would have preferred it not to have worked. Ok I've restored it to the original. See if it has the problem now. I'm afraid I have to go to bed, but feel free to play around with the test file. Keep trying to remove extraneous things from the file, trying to reduce the problem to its essential features. We'll talk again tomorrow. Paul August ☎ 05:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

what's left still has the bug. --Trovatore 05:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Though, not when I access it from that link. The "older revision/newer revision" seems to protect against the bug. --Trovatore 05:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's something to do with MathML

When I turned off "use MathML if possible" in my preferences, the bug went away. I'd be curious whether you can see it in Firefox, if you turn on MathML --Trovatore 05:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Good work! Yes turning on MathML in my prefs produces the problem - in all my browsers. This will make it much easier for me to work on. Thanks! Paul August ☎ 14:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of working on that template

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Footnote3, where one Francis Schonken is putting up a feisty case for placing it on the block. The argument is that there has not been a formal proposal for Template:rf and Template:Ent (I've pointed out the discussion on that very page, but she (he?) has either not considered it, or has and remains unimpressed; I'm unaware if you've formally created a proposal page for them). I cannot say that I find her unpersuasive—standardization is important business—and should the matter go to TfD, I'm reasonably certain that that crowd will feel the same way too.

May I make a suggestion, Paul? While you're tweaking the templates for MathML compatibility, could you perhaps create an autonumbering version? This seems to be the most salient opposition to the template. Of course, there is great value in having the choice of manually numbering a few refs in text when one wishes to refer to the same work multiple times; for this purpose, a separate template may be created (see for example {{Ref num}} and {{An num}}). The only other objection that I've seen to your templates is that they use small numbers; I consider this a rather strange objection, given that all footnote systems that utilize superscripts have small numbers, and if one has no objection to the small numbers in ref-note or an-anb, I cannot see how one can have a problem with the numbers in rf-ent.

If you do create an autonumbering version for rf-ent (and hopefully an rf num template to go with them), I expect a formal proposal may do rather well, because it will be a marked improvement over the currently popular ref-note in several ways:

it gets rid of the need to type # at the bottom when writing out the refs—an improvement that has been suggested for the ref-note system (and which applies to the an-anb system).
it solves the issue of the back-link arrow once and for all—there won't be any more need to argue about symbols that don't look like arrows and are too small/weird (ref-note) or which don't render properly in IE (old version of an-anb). Instead, there will be a linked number whose purpose is obvious, and which kills two birds at once.
it looks darn pretty.

Wadya say?—encephalon εγκέφαλον 03:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Encephalon. I haven't been following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Footnote3 and It is too long for me to read through it all right now. Maybe I will read through it later. The only auto-numbering system that I know of uses the mediawiki's auto-numbered external links feature. That has two problems. It means that you can't use external links in the article, since it will screw up the auto-numbering. And it means that noted text is indicated by superscripted bracketed numbers, which I don't like as well as superscripted numerals. Manual numbering is not that hard. And besides the numbers in the text don't really have to be in order. Only the numbers in the "Notes" section do. Paul August ☎ 03:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks for explaining that. I hadn't realized that that was the reason for the brackets in {{ref}} (though in hindsight it of course makes sense: external links placed in the text without a word or phrase will get autonumbered along with the {{ref}} numerals). I was only hoping that, if you managed a version of rf-ent that met the objections to it, it might formally be put forward as an improvement over ref-note, and thereby be spared a TfD. Do watch that page, though, Paul, if you don't currently. Discussions over footnotes take place there quite often, and I imagine you'd like to know of discussions over the fate of your excellent creations. I expect Francis will move to TfD them soon.—encephalon εγκέφαλον 05:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC) NB. I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "the numbers in the text don't really have to be in order. Only the numbers in the "Notes" section do." If I have a reference to "John", but write {{rf|1|John}} and {{ent|2|John}}, I believe clicking on ¹ in the text will still take me to the correct reference at the bottom (ie. ²John). But the numbers would still remain out of sync, wouldn't they?—encephalon εγκέφαλον 05:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC) Sorry, I see what you mean.—encephalon εγκέφαλον 05:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The rumors of my death...

Thank you for your concern. I was sucked away by the demands of paid work and The Ashes, successively. I then realised that I felt brighter without the daily dip into wikiconflict so I stayed away again. I am impressed with your contributions to the Ed Poor debate but I am not surprised that you felt them to be wasted. The realisation that such processes are time-consuming and ineffective is part of my disaffection with the project. I am now determined to focus on the rewarding aspects. —Theo (Talk) 21:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to find that you are still among the living. And Fil is back too! I am still optimistic about our little wikicommunity. But when I retreat to just editing articles It is always a breath of fresh air. I've been enjoying thinking about Dante again. I recommend it. Oh and Fil is offering to make a nice cup of hot tea for anyone who drops by. Keep in touch. Paul August ☎ 01:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and how do I know you aren't Theo's shade, communicating from beyond the grave? Paul August ☎ 15:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The last time I'm spamming you all with Esperanza stuff

Hello Paul August. As you may or may not know, there have been some troubles with Esperanza. So now, as a last ditch to save the community, please vote at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Reform on all neccisary polls. P.S. I'm very sorry for spamming you all with these messages, and this will be the last time. I recommend putting ESP on your watchlist. Cheers and please look at that, let's stop the civil war then. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for catching the Malcolm X vandal's work on my user page. It's much appreciated.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome Paul August ☎ 01:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hahaha, good thing you know your history [/sarcasm].

Your obviously an idiot. Nice by the way on the "1 BC" article, where you added "One scholar thinks Jesus was born in AD 1"...emm.. Jesus' year of birth is AD 1 in the Gregorian calendar!! Sure, it may be disputed, but scholars think Christ may have been born from 6 - 4 BC, not 1 BC. In either case, today is the year 2,005 AD (Anno Domini - in the year of Lord Jesus Christ), therefore meaning it's 2,005 years IN THE YEARS of Jesus, meaning he was born AD 1.

I don't claim not to be an idiot, but I can assure that I do have some people fooled, so it may not be as obvious as you think ;-) As regards to my recent edit at {{1 BC]], I was on what we call "RC (recent changes) patrol" looking for vandalism, when I saw a questionable deletion by a not-logged in user (apparently you) of the following: "December 25 - Jesus (died about 33) — traditional date, as assigned by Dionysius Exiguus in his anno Domini era according to most scholars. However, one scholar thinks Dionysius placed the birth of Jesus in year 1." Our article on Dionysius Exiguus, says the following:

Ever since the 2nd century, some bishoprics in the Eastern Roman Empire had counted years from the birth of Christ, but there was no agreement on the correct epoch — Clement of Alexandria (c. 190) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320) wrote about these attempts. Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC — most have selected 1 BC. (There was no zero year.)

Do you dispute the above?

Paul August ☎ 13:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiThanks, regarding protected pages

Thanks for the nice reminder about protected pages. --HappyCamper 17:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Your very welcome ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, would you happen to know where I can read up on how to create a 'bot? I'd like to make something that would automatically archive the reference desk. Right now, there are over 700+ questions there, and it is quickly becoming a bit too impractical to archive manually. --HappyCamper 19:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No I don't know anything abot bot writing, although I would like to. Try asking botmesiters AllyUnion (talk • contribs) or Oleg Alexandrov (talk • contribs). Paul August ☎ 19:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baulko AFD

Hi Paul, I am not overly familiar with the AFD process, however I note "no consensus" was reached for the above article despite their being three "redirect" votes over two for each of "keep" and "delete". Is an certain level of support required for a given choice? Cheers, --Daveb 02:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Daveb. The purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine whether there is a consensus for deletion or not. In this case there were two editors who were in favor of deleting the article and five who were not (any other recommendation than delete is a recommendation to keep, for example a redirect is a particular kind of keep) Thus there was clearly no consensus for deletion. And, although there was a majority to keep, it was not large enough (in my view - there is no set amount) to call it a consensus. Nevertheless, a lack of consensus to delete means the article will be kept by default. However the article can still be redirected. It could well be that all the editors who expressed an opinion on the AfD would support that. Such a decision is a normal editorial decision which can be addressed on the articles talk page, and doesn't involve AFD. Does that make sense? If anything I wrote wasn't clear, or you have aother questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Paul August ☎ 03:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that Paul - much clearer now. Cheers, --Daveb 09:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFD Bot & Purge cache link

Hi Ally. Your AFD bot is removing the purge cache template when it closes the current AFD day. Is there any reason why it can't leave it there? Paul August ☎ 00:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

On the request of [[User:Radiant!|]], it was requested for it to be removed. But frankly, I do not see any reason to leave it on either. Is there any specific reason you think it should be left on? --AllyUnion (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well if you don't purge the cache you don't see the previous updates that have been made to the transcluded pages. So, for example this can cause "double" closures, where an editor will "close" the AfD even though it has been already closed. I've had to correct several of these recently. Is there some reason it should not be left on? Paul August ☎ 14:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No, not really... just that when everything is closed, it is no longer necessary... The request has been changed in AFD Bot. --AllyUnion (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I've been adding the links maunally, for a couple of days now, it would be easier if your bot did it, but I can just keep on doing what I've been doing. Paul August ☎ 15:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ally. (When I responded to the above I didn't see the newly added part about the the bot being changed ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza

What the hell is going on over there? I'm half minded to remove myself from the members list if it's just going to turn into a battlefield of egos. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish I knew. Wikipedia is a chaotic place. I am just going to try to be a patient butterfly flapping my wings encouragingly here and there, and wait and see if Esperanza will somehow emerge from its cocoon. Paul August ☎ 14:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aristotelian logic again

I'm afraid the poor demarcation between Aristotelian logic and term logic has bitten a contributor, who has laboriously provided a lengthy explanation of syllogistic inference in the former that largely duplicates the explanation in the latter. I'm proposing a merge again, on Talk:Aristotelian logic --- Charles Stewart 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Charles. The merge is fine by me, I've said so there. By the way, I know you expressed an opinion about the name Boole's syllogistic for that article, but did you have any thoughts on the best names for the Boolean algebra and Boolean logic articles? Are you happy with those names? There has been some discussion that they should each be renamed "Boolean algebra" followed by some parenthetical disabiguation. But we can't seem to agree on what the best disambiguation would be, if you haven't already, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Boolean algebra, redux, talk:Boolean algebra and talk:Boolean logic. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw the discussion, and I had thought the article had reached the consensus of leaving things as they were, which I am happy with. I'll put a note there saying so, and why. I'll make a start on the merge today, and probably finish it on Thursday. Thanks for the welcome! --- Charles Stewart 14:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry: it's all in a name

P.S. By the way does "Filiocht" mean poetry in Irish? How do you pronounce it? I was at a Boston Wikipedia meetup last night, when I realized I didn't have the first idea how the last syllable might go ;-)

Yes, that's what Filiocht means. You'd say it something like fill-e-oct (as in octet, more or less, three syllables, short 'e' as second one). Why, pray tell, would my name arise in a Boston meetup? Nothing bad, I hope. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh we were all talking about what a scoundrel and a rogue you are ;-) No — It only "came up" in my mind. Some imagined conversation about my recent experiences within WP I think. It was my first time at the meeting and I suppose I was self-consciously wondering what I would talk about. Sorry to have piqued your imagination unnecessarily ;-) Paul August ☎ 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough; hope you enjoyed the meetup. Are we going to reformat the Dante list as per your preference? I'll help out as and when I can. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for being" agreeable" ;-) I appreciate the offer of help, but I would really prefer if you spent time adding content and let me do the drudge work. You being the man of letters, and me the man of numbers, it seems like a more reasonable division of labour. Also I would feel a bit guilty, since I couldn't help feeling I was making you cater to my perfectionistic whims ;-) As for the meetup, it was nice to see some of these people face-to-face. It left me feeling more optimistic about WP. There is some talk about holding the next wikimania in Boston. That might be interesting. Paul August ☎ 13:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I've been accused of vandalism - someone want to ban me? Oleg? Jitse? Fil? Nate the Stork? Func? Bish? Sj?

Well It's finally happened. I've been accused of vandalism. Maybe I was too empowered by my first Boston wiki-meetup. So perhaps I will blame it all on Sj. Now I know how it feels — not so good. Oh well I guess it had to happen eventually. But it is a new and rather unpleasant wiki-experience. Anyone want to ban me now? (Oleg? have you blocked anyone yet? this might be a good test) I know that first time vandals don't usually warrant banning but I think I'm a special case. Don't you? Paul August ☎ 20:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. This is another first: The first time I've initiated a section on my own talk page. Maybe I need a wikbreak ;-)

Yes, I am looking forward to banning somebody, just for practice. You know, there is a first in everything. And why not you be the first person I will block? But Paul, do you really want me to do that to you? I mean are you really sure? If I block you, and then you realize you don't really want to be blocked, if you are starting having a withdrawal from not being able to edit, how will you Paul notify me that you want to be unblocked, as you will be blocked and won't be able to edit?!? So think about it Paul. Its like jumping from the bridge, you know. You are half-way through and then you want to live, but its too late! Think about it. Oleg Alexandrov 20:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes yes, perhaps you are right. Perhaps I'm not really thinking clearly about this? Perhaps I'm being selfish? Think of all my friends and colleagues and loved ones! How would I ever forgive myself? How could they ever get along without me? How would we ever complete the PM project? Perhaps there is something to live for after all! … Naaaa, go ahead and ban me. — Paul August ☎

OK, OK, I will ban you if you insist. But don't be selfish, and indeed finish with the PM project first. Of the 4000 articles there, at least three thousand need reviewing I guess. Talk to you again in a couple of years. Oleg Alexandrov 00:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will hold you to your promise, but at the rate that Jtwdog is reviewing articles, it will not be in a couple of years, but rather a couple of days ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And now I've deleted AfD! (no an AfD, not the Afd), see below. Oleg: I really think I may need banning soon. Paul August ☎ 17:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sure, we can make amends

Hi Paul,

Please make that description of rf/ent templates, put it somewhere in "wikipedia:" or "help:" namespace, and inform your fellow-wikipedians where they can find that description of how to use these templates.

Maybe I was "short", I rather think I was too elaborate in my answers: the discussion about this alternate template takes too much space on wikipedia talk:footnote3, and it was inserted in a section where it's basicly not related to.

"Footnote3" guideline is severely attacked by some guy having a very peculiar idea about wikipedia:cite sources. That guy removed the "guideline" template from footnote3 a few days ago, in his attempts to discredit footnotes as a viable way to support verifiability. I called that intrusion on the footnote3 guideline (while the debate about confirming the guideline status of footnote3 is going on, without any conclusion in that sense) "vandalism", while deliberately neglecting the message in the "guideline" template. If you did the same thing, I called it the same. De-guidelining footnote3 is not going to help, IMHO.

I try to avoid as much as I can to think in categories of "OK guys"/"not OK guys" (which I experience somehow as not making the best out of Wikipedia). So I'd rather call an act "vandalism" than a guy "not OK".

And I continue my attempts to harmonise wikipedia footnotes with the cite sources guideline, but please, present the rf/ent templates to the community, so that I don't have to worry about that: if they're accepted, fine, I'll be the first to link the description of how to use them from the footnote guideline.

--Francis Schonken 05:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A small gift

For all your hard work formatting the List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy, I give you this star. Filiocht (KC)

Ah shucks twern't nothin. I needed a bit of a pick-me-up this morning (see the two sections immediately above), and your star did the trick ;-) thanks! Paul August ☎ 15:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oct–Dec 2005

[edit] Hello Spamlist!

Ah, my first ever spam mass produced and mailed to the spamlist. Well first of all let me re-state that we have an irc channel, #wp-esperanza, and its been rather empty, so I'd appreciate it if you come, even if you just idle about. Now, the evil polls have closed, and I left a justification note for running the evil polls. Nothing has really changed, but at least I have somewhat of a consensus. I hope to figure out a way to overturn my power to JCarriker somehow, I'll figure out a way :-) Meanwhile, I've been busy reforming the mediation system where I am the chairman now, er, acting chairman. Enjoy your spam, with extra vikings. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops!

You deleted Evanss's AfD, and not the article! Haha, its fine though, and restored. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I got the article too. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ooops. I guess I shouldn't try to close AfD's when I'm tired and watching the Red Sox-Yankees game all at the same time ;-). Thanks for catching my boo boo. I was acuused for the first time of vandalisng an article (see above) and now this. I think I may need to be banned soon ;-). Paul August ☎ 02:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

{{indefblockuser}} pwnafied. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hello again!

I 've told your answering machine message about complex numbers to some friends of mine, some of them laughed (like I did when I saw it) with the joke, others understood it but gave me a strange (or a little angry) look :)

I left a request note on User_talk:Aldux#two_requests_about_Thebans (Thebans at Thermopylae and with Alexander) and then I thought that perhaps you might be interested too. +MATIA ☎ 11:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) "

I'm glad you liked my little joke — I am puzzled by the "strange" looks though. As for Thebans and Alexander, I'm certainly intereted, but not sure I have anything to contribute there. I think Aldux is your man. I am just a lowly man of numbers, who only aspires to be a man of letters ;-) — Paul August ☎ 15:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well my two friends who didn't laugh, understood the meaning but instead of laughing, they looked at me with a certain way (which perhaps I can't describe). But the rest of us surely enjoyed it.

Aldux has already made some nice contributions on Alexander - he is good and quick :) +MATIA ☎ 16:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mania team

Hello Paul, it was good to see you last week. If you have specific ideas about how we could develop a Wikimania schedule, or interested people and orgs we could make connections with, please add comments to the bid page or talk page. We're having a collective discussion about the current bids tomorrow on IRC in #wikimania (at 20:00 UTC, I believe). Cheers, +sj + 05:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sj, I enjoyed talking with you (and others) at the meetup. I will have a look over the Boston Wikimania bid page, and make whatever contributions I can think of. I probably won't be able to participate in the IRC discussion tomorrow (for various reasons, I have "issues" with IRC discussions, not the least of which is I don't have any IRC client software!). But I would like to help in whatever ways I can, and I will try to stay informed as best I can. — Paul August ☎ 15:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. — By the way, can you tell me (again?) the WP user names of some of the people I met at the meetup? Dan? and his friend seated at the corner of the table to my left. And the tall guy at the opposite corner of the table from you and me, who I think you said was a regular at the meetups?

Dan hangs around here and wiktionary and meta at times. also graft, whom he addicted to the project. Then there is Brett who is a [tall] designer... +sj +

Thanks Sj. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resignation

Hello spam list, look at this. Essjay is the new leader of Esperanza, and I'm interested in seeing how he runs it. I'm busy doing other work... Please comment at that talk page there. I will still probably run the spamlist though. R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ecclesiastical State

Paul, I had a question about the rfd for Ecclesiastical state. When this was closed I was away for a couple of days on vacation and am just coming back and looking at it.

When I went back and read the comments, it seemed to me there was in fact consensus in terms of redirecting the page to Ecclesiastical government. At least five people stated that they though that this should happen. Is there a possiblity you could go back and look at this again?

If not, what do you suggest? Can I open another rfd or do I have to wait for awhile?

The only reason I ask Paul, is because that page has been associated with a lot of high POV material. I really do feel merging it will the other page will help alievate some of the problems associated with the page.

I'd appreciate it if you could leave me an answer on my talk page here. Thanks... Davidpdx 10/3/05 8:42 (UTC)

Hi David. The purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine whether there is a consensus for deletion or not. Regarding the AfD of Ecclesiastical state, by my reading, there were six editors who were in favor of deleting the article and nine who were not (any recommendation other than delete is a recommendation to keep, for example a redirect is a particular kind of keep). Thus there was clearly no consensus for deletion. And, although there was a majority to keep, it was not large enough (in my view - there is no set amount) to call it a consensus. Nevertheless, a lack of consensus to delete means the article will be kept by default. However the article can still be redirected. And assuming that those editors who recommended deletion would support redirection, there does seem to be a consensus for redirection. However, such a decision is a normal editorial decision and doesn't involve AfD. If you want to redirect the page, you could propose the redirection on the talk page first, or you could be bold and simply redirect, in either case, citing the AfD discussion as justification. Does that make sense? Have I answered your questions? If anything I wrote wasn't clear, or you have other questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Paul August ☎ 15:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul, thanks for the information. I'm fairly new, so some of this is on a learning curve for me. I liked your suggestion about redirecting. A few people mentioned a locked redirect. How possible is that? Thanks again for your help. Davidpdx 10/3/05 0:31 (UTC)

You're welcome David. Don't worry we were all new once. It is possible for any admin to "protect" a page, which means that no one can edit the page (except for another admin). This is done rarely, reluctantly, and only as a last resort. For the policy on page protection and how to go about requesting it see Wikipedia:Protected page. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask. Paul August ☎ 01:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] systematic error in set theory pages

So as long as we're more or less on the subject (and you're working on the set theory page, there's a fundamental and pervasive error that shows up over and over again. I've been reluctant to open the subject because I have no clear exit strategy, but here goes:

The pages talk about "naive set theory" and "axiomatic set theory". They claim that, in the first, mathematicians think of sets as collections of objects, but in the latter, they are simply "undefined" or "are whatever satisfies the axioms" or "have properties defined by the axioms" or some such. They claim that Cantor did naive set theory. They claim that naive set theory leads to the antinomies (e.g. Russell paradox) and that axiomatic set theory was what was needed to fix it. And they claim that modern mathematicians work in axiomatic set theory. This leads naturally to the following false conclusions:

Modern mathematicians don't think of sets as collections of objects.
Modern mathematicians consider all models of ZFC to be equivalent.
If they didn't, they'd be "naive".
An axiomatic treatment is necessary to avoid the Russell paradox.
Cantor's conception leads to the Russell paradox.

In fact modern mathematicians do think of sets as collections of objects, and while there are a few that claim to regard all models of ZFC as equally good, this is a minority view among working set theorists, at least among those who believe models have real existence at all.

It is not necessary to adopt an axiomatic approach to avoid the antinomies. The key, rather, is to understand the universe of discourse in terms of the von Neumann hierarchy, which follows naturally from the following intuitive concept of set:

You've got some things. You want a set of them. A set of such things is just a completely arbitrary assignment of which things are in the set, and which ones are not--it may happen accidentally to satisfy some "rule", but this is not of the essence. Once you've formed the set, it is itself a thing, and can be put in other sets.

And on point (5) I'm slightly less sure of myself, because I'm not really that good a historian, but I think this was in fact more or less Cantor's view, so Cantor's conception does not in fact lead to the Russell paradox. See the "Disputed" section on the talk page of Russell's paradox for my argument on this point. --Trovatore 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoa pardner, that's a whole lot of stuff for a befuddled old used to be categorical topologist to respond to ;-) Here are some random thoughts and questions:

I wouldn't exactly say I'm "working" on our Set theory article. I just was responding to Charles's prodding, to try and start the ball rolling. That might be an excellent article for you to take the ball and run with, and feel free to rewrite whatever I have written there.
Yes, our pages talk about "naive set theory" and "axiomatic set theory". Is that a problem? Do you think that that is not a proper or useful distinction?

Let's say I think it's not being made correctly. Under "naive set theory" informal, yet valid, set-theoretic reasoning, is being conflated with stuff that doesn't work, whereas many links followed from serious pages about set theoretic topics imply that they're part of the "axiomatic" branch, when they aren't, necessarily.

Ok. We should try to fix this. I will try to look at this issue. If you have the time to I would appreciate it if you could point to specific text.
Yes one of the ways WP tries to distinguish between naive and axiomatic set theory is that the former is content to rely on an everyday common sense understanding of sets and set membership, while the axiomatic approach, doesn't say what sets are other than that they satisfy certain axioms. In both cases however they are "undefined". The situation is analogous with points and lines in geometry. In "naive" geometry, one takes them as self-evident, in "axiomatic" geometry, they are taken to be whatever satisfy the axioms. Is this analogy not apt?

Depends on whether you mean "axiomatic set theory" as a formal syntactic game (in which case sets aren't taken to "be" anything), or whether you intend axiomatics as a method, taking axioms that you believe actually to be true of the objects of discourse, and deriving other truths about those objects. In the latter case, no, sets aren't "whatever satisfies the axioms"; you want to get the right objects (up to isomorphism).

Yes , in the later case you want to get the "right" objects, by choosing the "right" axioms, but in the end what you get is whatever the axioms give you, no?

No. How can the axioms "give" you sets? The axioms are just strings of characters; sets are much more complicated than that.

What I'm trying to say is this. You may intend your axioms to be a faithful description of some "true" objects of discourse, but once you have specified your axioms, what they actually describe is what you get, or equivalently what they give. This is true for all branches of mathematics. You may think you know what you are trying get at by defining the axioms of a topological space. But once you've defined it you don't really know what you are talking about any more, until you see what that definition implies, thats what the definition gives, and thats what a topologiacal space is.

Well, once again, no. That's the formalist view, but it just doesn't hold up if you want to talk about sets (or even models of set theory) as actually existing. (Unless you mean second-order axioms--that's another matter altogether; they do specify models of set theory up to isomorphism followed by end-extension.)
How would you describe the kind of set theory Cantor did?

"Informal" or "pre-formal".

A rose by any other name …
What did lead to the antinomies?

Short answer: Frege and logicism; the confusion between sets as arbitrary collections of objects and sets as extensions of (definable) properties. Granted, these things weren't entirely clear to Cantor himself; that's why he had to deal with Cantor's paradox. But he found at least a workaround (limitation of size).

Yes, and this is what a lot of people call "naive set theory".

"This" what? Cantor or Frege? Cantor's problem was fixable; Frege's wasn't, because Frege fundamentally had the wrong notion of set.
Yes, modern mathematicians don't "work in axiomatic set theory".
Yes, of course, modern mathematicians "think of sets as collections of objects".
Yes, of course, modern mathematicians don't "consider all models of ZFC to be equivalent".
I don't understand your number three above. If they didn't what, they'd be "naive"? By the way do you think that "naive" is being used pejoratively?

No, I don't, but I think that the pages would give that impression to a "naive" reader.

Ok, another problem we need to fix then.
Yes, an axiomatic treatment is not necessary to avoid the Russell paradox. But it was necessary to be a bit more careful, and axiomatics was a way to do this no?

Axiomatics provided a precise point of reference, and we have confidence that certain such axiomatizations do not derive the Russell paradox. But the pages leave the impression that, if you start thinking of sets as collections of objects, why, the antinomies are waiting to pounce.

Misimpression number three.
I'm not sure what your number five means exactly, nor do I know enough history to know with any precision what Cantor conceived.
If WP is making false "claims" leading to "false conclusions", then we need to fix that. But even claims that are true, may lead to false perceptions, and we need to fix those also.

Exactly.
As far as I know what WP says about all this is more or less consistent with the "party line", which of course might be all wet ;-), in which case it will be your job to enlighten us.

As for errors in our articles, it would be best to deal with particular statements in particular articles. I hope some of the above helps. I have taken an interest in the set theory articles, simply because they seemed a bit neglected. As far as I know you are the only set theorist, actively working on WP, and as far as I'm concerned, you should feel free to rework the set theory content, as you see fit. Always being prepared of course to defend your edits tooth and nail, with lots of authoritative sources, against every manner of assault from every possible direction ;-) Paul August ☎ 03:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a big job (many many articles), and I'm not really sure where to find references. Most of my textbooks don't deal much with philosophy or history; Kunen does, a little, but probably not in a way that's useful to me. I might have to find some Maddy papers or locate a copy of Drake. And it really isn't what I ought to be spending time on now. --Trovatore 03:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You have other things to do besides Wikipedia !? Ok, I understand. We will all just do do the best we can. I will keep chipping away at it, and maybe someday I will understand enough to fix it all. It will, nevertheless, all get sorted out eventually. I appreciate your thoughtful critique, Trovatore. Paul August ☎ 04:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New subheader purely for navigational purposes

Let me elaborate a little on your "topological space" analogy way up in the middle of all that mess somewhere. The notion we want to capture is more like "the real line" than general "topological space". It's a particular thing, not just anything that satisfies a set of first-order axioms.

The notion defined by the ZFC axioms, in the way that the axioms of a topology define "topological space", is not "set", but "model of ZFC". What we're trying to get at is not, "what is a model of ZFC?", but rather "what is a set"? You yourself agreed that not all models of ZFC are equally good. (Well, the word was "equivalent", but that's what I meant when I said "equivalent".)

Specifically, one model M of ZFC can be inferior to another model N, by failing to contain a subset of a set they both share, when N does have that subset. (This is after suitable cross-model identification; that's a technical annoyance that I don't want to address at the moment.) If you insist on sticking to models that completely maximize the powersets of all the sets they have, then that's when you get the categoricity result I alluded to above. In particular, for example, all such models will agree on the truth value of CH, and that must be the real truth value of CH. --Trovatore 05:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In re inferior, I'm afraid that last is a naive interpretation of set theory, once you deal with forcing or Boolean-valued models (stub) of set theory, which can introduce new objects which do not "really" exist. (And I do know something about this -- or at least what it was about in 1976. My proposed thesis was on algebraic (or what would be algebraic, when dealing with infinitary operations) characteristics of Boolean algebras and properties of the corresponding Boolean-valued models. Unfortunately, my advisor didn't get tenure, so I had to choose a different topic.) Unfortunately for the wikipedial article on Boolean-valued models, I don't know what's been done since then, so most of what I could write on that topic would be original research. Arthur Rubin 13:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, but what we're after here is things that do really exist.

Look, take a simple specific case, Cohen forcing. What's a Cohen real? It's one that's in every comeager set of reals. Is there such a thing? Of course not--if x is any real, then R\{x} is comeager and doesn't contain x. But there are reals that are Cohen over any countable transitive model you like, and that's enough to do independence proofs.

Or if you want to keep around more of the structure of V than you can have in a countable model, you can do the Boolean-valued approach, letting B be the regular open algebra of the Cohen poset and work in V^B, and that works well for a lot of things too. But then questions like "is the new real greater than 22/7?" don't have yes-or-no answers; their answers are elements of B. So these things are not really reals; for any actual real, it's either greater than 22/7, or it's not.

Now, it does seem to be a convenient mental/linguistic tool to pretend that you're actually adding things to the universe. But it doesn't seem to work out well philosophically to conclude that you really are doing so. --Trovatore 17:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advisory Committee election deadline set

Our new admin general, Essjay, has set the date for the advisory committee elections, that date being October 7th. By UTC it is October 5th right now. So see WP:ESP/E for voting in two days, and add yourself to the list if you're interested in running. On a personal note, I'm considering running, as I only resigned as admin general because of time. I'm sure I could help out on the advisory committee... Anywho, watchlist that page, and be sure to read the voting method too. Regards, R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion templates, bookmarklets, etc.

I noticed that you (Paul) reverted an edit and then re-reverted (unreverted?) it in Talk:Boolean_algebra. Do you have tools which make that easier? (I'm one of the Open Directory Project editors who decided to join the vandalism watch.) Arthur Rubin 13:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. Yes I reverted my (accidental) revert. I was hoping my silly mistake would (for the most part) go unnoticed and now you've gone and told the world ;-) But yes, every admin has a "rollback" button, which makes reverting easy (sometimes too much so, as my accidental "click" above shows). You can read all about reverts and rollbacks here: wikipedia:Revert. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for your kind words. They mean a lot to me coming from you, an editor whose own work and opinions I think highly of; you're one of Wikipedia's best editors, in my opinion. (Not only for your thoughtful, reasonable discussions and clearly-written articles, but your terrible math jokes as well!) I'm honored at the compliment, and glad to see others endorsing the position. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Smells to me of a feel good correspondence in here; kind words spilled out, kind words in return, and all that. One thing you are right about though, is that Paul's jokes are indeed terrible, very terrible I woud say. Oleg Alexandrov

Oleg I choose to think she meant "terrible" as in the French enfant terrible, women, I'm told, like "bad boys" — not bad jokes! Paul August ☎ 17:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Only if you don't associate with the right sort of women! Which is fortunate for the august Paul, as I'd reserve the enfant terrible label for some other editors myself (if you'll pardon my French...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

First, the "best wikipedia editor", then the "august Paul". Gosh, ain't you blushing under that hat? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, apparently I'm smiling like Mona Lisa, so I thought turnabout might be fair play! :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, my fair lady! Paul August ☎ 01:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You may be making somebody jealous. I for one am outa' here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk)

[edit] re: Just a thanks

Thank you, thank you very much. I'm touched. Thank you a lot, I really needed that. --Blackcap | talk 20:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome, you are very deserving of everything I said. Paul August ☎ 17:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

I don't suppose you have a link to the ArbCom elections, do you? I'm having difficulty finding them.--Scimitar ^parley 22:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Scimitar. The election page is here, the voting hasn't started yet. Candidate statements are here. There was an endoresements page here. But now it's "closed". Paul August ☎ 22:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.--Scimitar ^parley 23:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Lowery

Thanks for getting that so fast. I saw it, got ready to AfD it, and it was already gone! :-D — ceejayoz ^★ 02:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 02:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smokabong

Hi. You closed this vfd as delete, but don't seem to have pushed the button on the article itself. —Cryptic (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks Cryptic, for catching my mistake. As you can see, the button has now been pushed ;-) — Paul August ☎ 14:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Note

Hi Paul! I just wanted to tell you that I've awnsered your message, if you haven't seen it. Bye ;-) Aldux 13:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of problems

Hi Paul. I was hoping you could advise me on a couple of difficulties that have emerged. These are:

1) The contributer Anna4president has placed in the articles Olympias, Cassander and Hephaestion images of the actors of the film Alexander by Oliver Stone; should they be kept or removed?

2) The second problem, far bigger, concerns the article Diadochi :-( I've let myself be trapped in taking part in a revert war with Miskin :-( The problem is that Puskin doesn't seem a very reasonable wikipedian, and so I doubt I can engineer a compromise :-( What shall I do? Aldux 09:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aldux. I have removed the content that was added to Olympias, Cassander and Hephaestion. It didn't seem particularly relevant to me. If it gets added back, we should discuss it on the article's talk pages. I have also reverted Miskin's edits to Diadochi, and posted a comment on Talk:Diadochi, please join in the discussion there if you like. Unfortunately "revert wars" are a part of the Wikipedian landscape. It is best to try and avoid them. I would suggest trying to use the talkpages as much as possible. Some more general suggestions (not that I think you need them ;-), would be: Try to keep an open mind. Realize that many disagreements are the result miscommunication. Try not to take disagreements personally. Be considered in what you write. And above all remain polite. Getting other editors involved (like you did here) can also be a good thing to do. Read Wikipedia:WikiLove. That is the best advice (or platitudes) I have to offer at the moment, if I think of anything else that might help I will let you know ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Paul :-) I promise I'll try to be more considerate and less harsh next time I find myself in disagreement with another wikipedian Aldux 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I hope you didn't think that anything I wrote above was any sort or criticism of you, because it wasn't. I don't think you committed any "sins", mortal or venial. If I had, I would have given you some more penance ;-) vade in pace. Paul August ☎ 20:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucan

Thanks for doing some of the disambig work on Lucan - I went through the ones for the town, and ended up edit crashing with you on the poet ones at least twice :) --Kiand 16:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome, and I'm sorry ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope

You may want to pay closer attention to your reversions. The recent one you made to the Pope article "corrected" the deletion of this image as the picture of the incumbent. I'm almost positive this was an accident. (It's well known that Pope Benedict XVI resembles Emperor Palpatine, but it's hardly encyclopedic to point that up.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that. Sometimes my vandalism trigger finger, gets a little twitchy. I will try to be more careful. Paul August ☎ 05:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Of course you can, given that you already have. :-) Thanks; I'll do my best to be fair and effective. And not jump out a window in the process... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, especially the part about not jumping out a window! Paul August ☎ 18:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote on list of lists, a featured list candidate

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Spam

Hello Esperanzians! A few announcements.

The Advisory Committee election results are in. In tranch A are Acetic Acid and Flcelloguy. In tranch B are Ryan Norton and Bratsche.

My other annoouncement is that our founder, JCarriker, has founded Esperanza's sister project, Wikipediology. I have written two essays here (my name is Matt Binder). My essays are under Teenage Wikipedians and Anon Editors.

On behalf of myself and Jay Carriker and the other wikipediologists, I would appreciate it if you were to join.

Cheers Esperanza! R e dwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I think You Deserve This

For your endless fight against vandalism and having the fastest rollback I have seen I think you deserve this --JAranda | watz sup 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

[edit] Ana Voog/"Tool time" editor

I just gave the user at 12.222.12.137 vandalism warning level 4 (after giving level 2 and 3) for his/her edits on the article for Ana Voog. Unfortunately, I'm not an admin, so I lack the ability to enforce these warnings. (Full disclosure: I'm also a friend of Ms. Voog's.) Would you be willing to help me enforce these warnings if need be? Thank you. -- SwissCelt 03:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stepping on toes

Looks like we were stepping on each others toes a wee bit when reverting the vandalism just now by 24.171.57.110. Sorry about that. :p --nihon 03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. It was my fault really. Paul August ☎ 04:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is actually the first time it's happened like this for me. I did post a warning on the anon user's Talk page. Hopefully he'll stop. :) --nihon 04:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania in Boston

Heya, Paul -- Long time no see. You can now sign up to attend or volunteer... Also, we should talk more about regular meetings, now that ice cream is out of season. +sj + 08:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:User categorisation

Please see Category:Wikipedians in Massachusetts for info on the continuing project of user categorisation --Vidkun 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

God to see you around the place again. I have no idea what to do about the ArbCom. If Jimbo asked me, I might serve, but I doubt he knows I exist, frankly. I find this a worrying development, I must say.

I'm afraid I haven't touched the Dante list, but I'd like to get your feedback on Wikipedia:Peer review/Objectivist poets. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You're very welcome, glad you think they are improvements. But whatever they are, they are really very small. But I guess you mean it's the thought that counts. I have a couple of other minor concerns which I haven't figured out what to do about yet. Paul August ☎ 15:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As they say, the devil is in the detail. Like the Italian, by the way. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I dropped Aldux a quick line, nothing so formal as an introduction. And yes, you're right. It is always better to be civil. The harder it is, the more important. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks and yup. Another reason I'd like to see you rather than some others on the ArbCom. Paul August ☎ 15:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, another welcome back; good to see you around again! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I had a great time in Italy and it is good to be back. But … you see me? Gosh, I better get dressed then! (To Fil: I don't mind you seeing me unwashed, disheveled and in my bathrobe, but Kat is another thing altogether — and fortunately so! She is another one who is also quite civil, which will stand her in good stead on ArbCom.) Paul August ☎ 16:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I mean, of course, you silly thing, that I see your font—and sans serif, too; you ought to be ashamed! And for myself, sometimes I don't even have my hat on when I edit, which is perfectly scandalous of me.

As for arbcom... well, I should just say that my tongue is raw from all the biting to keep up that civility, but thank you. I'd say I'd love to see Filiocht on it, too, but I'm torn, as I don't generally wish that sort of thing on people I like... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Kat sans hat; whatever next? Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivist poets

See my takl page, please. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ed_Poor blocked Duncharris again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Oleg, I've commented there. Paul August ☎ 04:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citation issues

You may be interested in reference/citation content/format issues in Talk:Global cooling#Citation format poll (see preceding discussion) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco#Response. (SEWilco 05:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Bot notification

User:Paul August, you have reached the 100th item on your discussion page. You must archive. Mathbot 06:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alien notification

Paul, you will have reached the 101st item on your discussion page after I press Save. You must archive.

Furthermore, I'm wondering whether you're checking the email you have set, as I send a message to it. You can answer on Wikipedia, by email, or not at all, whatever you prefer. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And now it's 102, but they're all short! And would you rather I archived my page, or replied to your email? — I don't have time for both! Paul August ☎ 03:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A little overkill?

I'm curious whether you think this user might be going a little overboard with promoting the Alleria page. I'm leaning that way, but want a second opinion. --nihon 01:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think most of these edits border on vandalism. Most of them have been reverted now. Paul August ☎ 04:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was sure on some of them, but unsure on others. Thanks for checking. :-) --nihon 07:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 07:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question from my bot

Hi Paul. Mathbot is saying "hi". He got over that "bag of bits" description, and is wondering why your newest talk page archive is not on your watchlist. Does it have anything to do with, uhm, you doing it under compulsion? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

How the hell does your bot know what is on my watch list? Paul August ☎ 03:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You check your archive, bot said. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm … your bot seems to have "created" my last archive file. What happened to the one I created? Would he care to explain? Paul August ☎ 03:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I am not really sure. I think my bot is lying, but his version of things is the following:

User:Paul August cuts a big chuck from his talk page, to archive (under protest!)
User:Paul August cuts a chuck from is talk page, to move his newest barnstar to his user page.
User:Paul August saves his user page, with the new shiny barnstar.
User:Paul August ... finds some other thing to do ....

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless your bot has the power to edit the logs — it looks like he's correct: Bot 1 Human 0. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classics + Maths = Paul

Hi Paul. A question arose on the etymology of Lemma (mathematics), which you might be able to answer. What is the original Greek word? Somebody claims on the talk page that it is λείμμα, but the article says λεμμα. Both words exist with very similar meanings, according to the Perseus site [13] [14] (I assume you know this web site; it's wonderful for somebody like me who has had Latin in school but forgot most of it). The meanings given by Perseus (quoting Liddell & Scott) are very similar. However, our article Lemma (mathematics) gives a very different meaning. Can you explain this? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

First I must correct your formula above: classics + math (not maths as I'm American) - Ω = Paul, (where Ω = is all but a measure zero subset of classics + math). Second (as a corollary to the first), I'm afraid I am unable to add much more to what you already know. The two Greek words seem obviously related. So the English word Lemma is probably related to both of them. My OED says, it comes, (possibly through Latin), from the Greek λημμα, from the root λαμβανειν (to take) meaning something received or taken, something taken for granted (compare with: [15]). This meaning agrees with the meaning given in our Lemma (mathematics), and is not really so far from from the one Perseus gives for λεμμα — and yes Perseus is one of my favorite sites, and truly indispensable for an amateur like me. By the way I also was "taught" Latin in school, of which about all that I recall is "Maria habuit parvum agnum". Paul August ☎ 18:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't be so modest; it's the quality, not the quantity, that counts (I'll refrain from applying that principle to Wikipedia, as it will only serve to depress me). So it's probably λημμα (with an eta) instead of λεμμα (with an epsilon); excellent. One of the things I remember from my first year of Latin is the huge amounts of words used for "to kill". I'm a bit surprised you had Latin in school; my experience is that it's very rare in the UK to learn Latin (much rarer as in continental Europe) and I assumed that's even more the case in the US. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your assumption concerning Latin education (or lack thereof) in the U.S. is certainly correct. In my case this was many many years ago (less stuff to teach way back then) and more importantly, it was a private Catholic boys school (and the priests all knew "Church Latin"). —the preceding unsigned comment is by Paul August (talk • contribs)

You forgot not only Latin, Paul, but also how to sign your name. Now go stand in the corner facing the wall for 15 minutes reciting Ave Maria 20 times for penance. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I'm just glad the this came from you and not from someone (or something) else. For the sake of what's left of my dignity, please don't tell you know who. Paul August ☎

"Britania est insulam. Est Britania parvum insulam? Non! Britania est magnam insulam!" (Until about 5 years ago, I could handle Latin pretty well, but then I woke up one morning, and I noticed all this Latin vocabulary on my pillowcase. Apparently, it had leaked out of my head during the night. It made an awful mess, as there was rather a lot of it. In comparison, the freshman year Greek I took left only a tiny stain that was easily removed with a single wash. The two years of college Latin, in comparison, nearly ruined my furniture.) Geogre 03:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Paul, and thanks for you message welcoming me to the Wiki community. I had been meaning to get on the Thucydides edit for ages, but all sorts of things have kept me from it. I am not done, to be sure, but that's another matter. Anyway, in the process of running down the person who'd messaged me (didn't know such things could happen on Wikipedia--I'm such a newbie!), I saw this question about Lemma. Lemma does indeed come from Λαμβανειν, as you pointed out, though Leimma does not (comes from a different verb λειπειν). Now lambanein means to take and in the passive is often translated as "receive". The nominal form lemma, then, is anything received. It is a short jump from this to the meaning "a given" (in the passive sense), which is what I presume the mathematical meaning is. Anyway, it is used in Aristotle's logical works to mean the major premiss in a syllogism. It comes to english directly from Aristotle. It might be worthwhile to edit the Lemma (mathematics) page to reflect that the usage doesn't really have anything to do with gifts or bribes. Don't mean to bore you... Jim 05:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally a true scholar strides forth ;-) Thanks Jim, for the clarification. Paul August ☎ 06:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder why I got the idea that it was related to "horn," from the horn tabs used to mark chapters. A "lemma" in a dictionary or encyclopedia, for example, is the keyword term being looked up. (Hence, also "dilemma": between two horns.) Well, I need to check my pillowcase to see if there was more to the story that leaked out overnight. (And I'm a true scholar! Only true scholars could get things like this wrong.) Geogre 18:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well Geogre, you certainly seem scholarly enough to me, but are you sure you are entirely true? You don't always seem completely square to me. And don't protest that you are a square, that's an entirely different thing. Paul August ☎ 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't want to overkill this, but the "lemma" as dictionary entry comes from the tradition of Alexandrian scholarship (that is, in the Museum of Alexandria in the Hellenistic and Roman eras). In a classical text, if a word, or phrase was being discussed in a commentary, they would print the word or phrase being discussed. It was thus "taken" out of the text. The practice continues in modern commentaries. Now sometimes, when you compare two texts, you may have two different diversions of a sentence, phrase or word. This presents a "dilemma" in at least two senses, since you have two lemmata and, certainly, a problem. The difficulty of resolving such dilemmata gave rise to the "horn" imagery, I suppose. BTW, I performed a bit of organization on the History of the Peloponnesian War article. I hope others (who are interested) join me in working on it. Such a text deserves better treatment than its gotten so far!! Jim 19:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Another case of my scholarly bona fides follows: from the immortal Myles: "I'm in a bit of a dilemma. (How do you like his horns?)" I think in some way the "horn" derivation is somewhat more active, at least among us wordy folk. It is quite possible that it's associative rather than etymological, that the "lemma," as heading, derives from "taking/clipping," and that lemmae were so often marked with horn markers that "horn" became a dominant meaning for "lemma" among harmless drudges. At any rate, whether I am fair or not depends upon whether I am right and regular. I do what I can about regularity -- proper ruffage and the like -- and, going through every possible angle on a subject, I'm bound to hit 90 degrees sooner or later. Geogre 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza elections

Hi Paul August/Archive Index: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005. Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December.

You've received this spam because you signed up for it here. To stop the spam, pop over and remove yourself and you'll never hear from Esperanza again!

➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Listing

It just seemed like the right time … —Theo (Talk) 19:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

PS Would you like a revision tutorial on talk page archiving?

Et tu Theo? — Paul August ☎ 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yes yes yes! Remember you read it here first!

In the FuelWagon/Ed Poor request for arbitration, six arbitrators have now voted to support the remedy "For repeated abuse of his sysop powers, both past and present, Ed Poor is desysopped". Six are a majority. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC).

Thanks Bish for the heads up, I wasn't following this case at all. I believe that Ed probably deserves to be desysopped because of his repeated misuse of admin powers, and (provided they do in fact desysop him) I will be heartened by the ArbCom's willingness to take such action in the case of someone like Ed ( an old hand with many influential friends and supporters). However, I am saddened that it had to come to this. Ed was, for a time, for me, one of the "heroes" striding across the wikipedia landscape, and I can take no pleasure from the consequences of his feet of clay and his fall from grace. Paul August ☎ 16:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the subject

I just wanted to congratulate you on the clarity and good sense of this edit. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hah! I just came here from reading the very same thing! :-) Geogre 11:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Blind sows and acorns. Paul August ☎ 19:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] News from Esperanza

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

[edit] Hi Paul, please help

I would like to request your help with serious NPOV and verifiability problems on the Arabic numerals page. I have mentioned it, yet again, here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17. Please help me recruit as many neutral and well-intending editors to the page to counter the strong and manifest bias. Regards, and thanks. csssclll (14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Troy

I see what you mean. I used the rollback button - perhaps that was the reason. --Jay (Reply) 03:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold the phone! The rollback button that I use is the same standard button available from Sam Hocevar. The hundreds of rollbacks I've done are in good order. Perhaps the problem is with the "updated" version I installed from here, which supposedly addresses an even worse malfunction with rollback when using automated popups. Given the fact that I seldom use those popups for anything, and the fact that I find them more annoying than helpful, I will immediately go back to the original version by Hocevar, rather than the "updated" version. --Jay (Reply) 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Developments

I looked into the bug that you spoke of on the Troy article: it was an ampersand bug (i.e. it makes Johnson & Johnson into Johnson &amp Johnson); as you can see here, it was previously fixed by Hocevar. The problem I had was that the "updated" version created on the aforementioned scripts page utilized the older version of Hocevar's rollback button to fix the issue regarding the popup bug. Problem solved - who ever posted that "updated" version of the rollback button on the scripts page has to pull it from the scripts page pronto, and create a new one using Hocevar's latest rollback script. --Jay (Reply) 22:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dhul-Qarnayn

I was asking myself if you could give me some advise for a problem I've got regarding Dhul-Qarnayn :-( I'm sorry to admit I got myself involved in an enormous revert-war five days ago and still proceeding, with six editors partecipating (me, Thomas Arelatensis, Cuchullain, Farhansher, Irishpunktom, Karl Meier). It all started when Thomas Arelatensis introduced a change to the article, that I thought NPOV and so defended against Irishpunktom; and from that started a war that shows no sign of ending. Is their in wikipedia something or somebody I can ask to arbitrate the matter and take the decision whether the reverts are or are not legitimate so to put an end to the dispute? The fact is I'm fed up with this neverending revert-war (to which I have partecipated consistently, I admit). I doubt using the talk page would be of much use: the positions appear generally too distant. What should I do? Aldux 21:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your problems at Dhul-Qarnayn. I will look at the page and try to advise on a course of action. Till then, try not to worry too much about it, these things happen all the time. Sometimes it is just best to back away from a situation like this, and return to it later when feelings have cooled. Anyway I hope you are having a good holiday season. I will be in touch. Ciao for now, Paul August ☎ 22:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I think I'll do as you said: I'll let it cool down and search for something less controversial to work with ;-) In the meanwhile, Buon Natale (Happy Christmas)! Aldux 12:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, Euler's identity

Thank you for correcting the recent revision to Euler's identity where the (unkown) editor claimed that $-i \,$ is not one of the two square roots of $-1 \,$ . I was pleased that someone was paying attention and made the correction. Thanks again. -- Metacomet 04:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Paul August ☎ 04:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of Miami criticism section

thanks for previously removing the vandalism from the UM page. The criticism section has been repeatedly deleted for maybe a dozen times now, and we have been having to just keep putting it back up. Finally, someone prtotected it- but with the vandalsim up (and the criticism down). If you could add your input on the discussion section it would be helpful. Thanks, jcdpi

[edit] Julius Caesar

About the whole deleting sections thing...
I don't understand what's going on with that. It has happened to me twice now. I followed the standard procedure for a revert, id est (when in Rome) went to the history and edited the penultimate version and saved it without making any changes. Why is that deleting sections? WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I think I've seen that before (perhaps because of an edit conflict?) Anyway I didn't think you did it on purpose. Paul August ☎ 05:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the edit histories seems to rule out an edit conflict. There's only one thing I can think of. It's only happened to me on the Caesar article and the Help and Reference desk pages, all of which are very long. Maybe my browser, currently IE 5.1 as I am editing from an ancient pre-OS X Mac, can't load the full code into the edit box. Hmm, anyway I should be back to my iBook G4 and Tiger OS tomorrow. I'll mention it on the tech page at the village pump. Thanks for assuming good faith, WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 07:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think that could be it. Paul August ☎ 07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julius Caesar (2)

Why did you change all of the BCEs and CEs to BC/AD? The use of the B/CE is the preferable set to use. David618 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello David, welcome to Wikipedia. Our policy concerning Date eras, is that either BC/AD or BCE/CE are acceptable, but should be used consistently within an article, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras. Also in order to eliminate edit warring over this, the accepted practice is not to change an article which has consistently used one nomenclature to the other (unless it is to revert such a change). In the case of Julius Caesar the article has consistently used BC/AD, until three days ago, when the IP 68.45.233.185 changed the article to use BCE/CE. My edit was to simply to undo that. Does that make sense? Regards, Paul August ☎ 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Though it says that both are acceptable, the guide then uses Common Era, which implies that it is preferable to use B/CE. Furthermore it is generally accepted that Common Era is more professional and if Wikipedia truly wishes to be considered a reliable source then it should try at the very least to look professional.David618 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

David, I think you are mistaken about there being any implied preference in the Manual of Style for either notation. I believe that Wikipedia is currently officially neutral between the two. And as I said it is an agreed upon practice to leave articles the way they are, in that regard. However as Oleg suggests below if you can convince the other editors at talk:Julius Caesar then a switch might be made. However be aware that that this issue has been repeatedly discussed, and many editors have strong feelings on both sides of the issue, so at the moment, it is doubtful that a consensus can be achieved on this. Given the lack of a consensus the above policy and practice is a compromise designed to help quell the endless edit warring that has occurred around this issue. Paul August ☎ 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If I am allowed to squeak in, maybe there should be some discussion at talk:Julius Caesar where the editors would express their opinions on the matter, with the dates staying for the time as they were before this started, that is, BC/AD. No? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I just recently realized that this had been debated on the talk page. Sorry that you had to deal with changin back my reversions. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More fun than humans should be allowed to have

Thank you, and happy holidays to you; I've moved your gift to a more prominent place on my user page. :-) As for the arbcom... well... um... it's no worse than I expected, and I'll leave it at that. And a silly limerick for you as thanks:

For quality Paul may be crazed,
but in conflict is mostly unfazed—
and, too, pretty swell
for one who can't tell
his mug from his chocolate glazed!

Cheers, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it. And only some of us will get the last two lines ;-) Paul August ☎ 03:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

After math is crazy Paul
This is known by us all

He may dream of Ancient Greece
But just numbers give him peace

Neither Caesar, neither Kate
Are too stong to change his fate

But don't worry, have some rum
And enjoy the year to come

Anonymous

[edit] Jan–Mar 2006

[edit] Happy New Year

Happy New Year!—Theo (Talk) 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buon Anno!

Happy New Year! :-) Aldux 14:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, happy New Year to you too! Giano | talk 13:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

The footnotes you've added to Gödel's incompleteness theorem don't seem to work; I click on the links and nothing happens. Is this related to the bug in the template we labored over last fall? --Trovatore 22:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions for television shows (again)

I saw that you were active in the first vote for naming conventions of television program(mes). Well it has raised it's ugly head again and I would appreciate any comments you have to make about my new proposal for naming television shows. Please leave comments here. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Globe joys, interview

There are some Globe reporters writing about Wikipedia in a Boston context, and I thought they might like to interview you. I talked to them today and they're pretty cool. If you're up for it, leave me a note or email me (meta.sj gmail). Sj

[edit] signing for rick

thanks Rick Norwood 22:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Paul August ☎ 22:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For your support and congratulations! (Now, if only Filiocht would return from his vacation... besides, he's just about out of tea. Don't suppose you've heard from him?) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You're most welcome for both. Yes if only — and all the milks gone sour! No I've not heard from him. Hopefully he's on an extended, and much deserved, holiday. Paul August ☎ 22:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Hi Paul. While new sections have to go at the bottom of the page, new comments pertaining to an old section may be posted in an older section. At least, that is the traditional practice in Wiki, whether or not it is official. On the other hand, one can choose to archive. Alexander 007 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex ;-) I suppose you are referring to the note: "New comments at bottom, please" at the top of Talk:Alexander the Great. Yes you are correct about the proper placement of new comments. I didn't write that note but simply made it bold to indicate it was a note. I think it was trying to express what you were saying above, but ambiguously. Feel free to change it. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erdős number

I realize that you don't yet appear to have participated in the User Categorisation project, but you might be interested in the Erdős number sub-project, or specifically this page. SyntaxPC 08:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porus, Pururushottama, Battle of the Hydaspes River

Hi Paul, happy to see you back :-) I wanted to know if you could help me with a problem I have with an anonymous Indian editor (his IP are many, User:192.94.94.105, User:192.94.94.106, User:192.91.75.29, User:192.91.75.30, but I'm pretty sure he's the same guy), regarding the battle of the Hydaspes River, which he insists in imposing a version that Alexander lost, a thing that no scholar accepts, and has expanded this not only to Battle of the Hydaspes River, but also to Porus, Purushottama and Alexander the Great (in the latter case he seems to have given up). What I find particularly frustrating is that they're exactly the same arguments taken from exactly the same webpage, Alexander the Ordinary. This has already been twice discussed at Alexander the Great and rejected by all non-indian editors, as can be seen at Talk:Alexander the Great#Conquest of India? and Talk:Alexander the Great#Disputed Indian History. An Indian editor, User:Idleguy, also tried to block this anon. editor, but he too had little luck. I've tried speaking with him at Talk:Porus, but it has been of absolutely no use. What should I do? And sorry for nagging you again; you must be feeling I'm becoming, as they say where I live, una tassa, i.e. "a tax" ;-) Aldux 14:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aldux. Sorry you are having problems. I've looked into the situation a little, and I agree that those IP's are all apparently being used by a single editor, pushing a particular POV. I'm not sure I have any magic solutions for you. I think the best thing to do is to try to involve as many other editors as you can in the dispute (see: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment). For example you might consider asking Wetman's help. I've added those pages to my watchlist, and I will monitor the situation, and I will see what other assistance I can provide. In the mean time continue to do what you are doing, and try not to loose your patience and continue to be as polite and considerate as possible. (P.S. No you are not "a tax", I'd rather think of it as performing my duty as your patronus ;-) Paul August ☎ 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus impossible with Aldux

He just does not accept any argument which is contrary to his. Book reference is there but that is "unscholarly" according to Aldux. These nationalists are hard to deal with.

Suggest a way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.75.30 (talk • contribs) 15:32, January 27, 2006 (UTC).

I've replied at User talk:192.91.75.30. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I will not be able to create an account. I have been operating like this for many years. Hard to explain the reason. But this should not deter us from reaching a logical conclusion. Ciao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.94.94.106 (talk • contribs) 16:44, January 27, 2006 (UTC).

Well would you like to try to explain the reason? I can't think of any disadvantage myself. I be interested to know any. In any case could you sign your posts with four tildes: "~~~~". Paul August ☎ 16:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also be interested why the person 192.94.94.106 contributing from ti.com (Texas Instruments I guess) can't make an account. You get more anonymity with an account, not less, if that's the concern. Just pick a silly name, and will make life easier for you, and most importantly, for everybody else. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Let us avoid the account issue Paul. Tell me why is a written source not acceptable. Note Arrian wrote based on Ptolemy who was not present at this battle. Plutarch similarly wrote the account more then hundred years later. Oliver Stone made the movie Alexander after much research and if you watch the film he almost shows Alexander lost to Porus. There is no funny business of "treat me like a king" from Porus. Few more things to look at, after Jhelum alexander walked down Indus, alone, and fought the malli tribe who pierced his armor and shot an arrow through his ribs and he almost died. If Porus was his vassal he would have accompanied Alexander. But Porus did not accompany him. It is also mentioned Alexander gave a whole bunch of gold to Porus, now why would a victor give his wealth to a looser? Alexander's army refused to go any further. Note the terrain to get to Jhelum is a lot tougher then ambulating in the ganges plain of India. So his army had already done the hardwork. They did not turn back because of 8 years of war or whatever. They turned back because they saw so many of there fellow soldiers die. Lastly, Greeks want to portray Porus as king of India. India at that time was ruled by Nanda dynasty and Porus was a vassal of Magadha. So one cannot say 'Alexander's conquest of India'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.94.94.105 (talk • contribs) 07:40, January 29, 2006 (UTC).

No, let us not avoid the issue of the account. You show up sporadically, each time with a different IP address, and don't even know how to sign your posts. You should make an account, and be a well-behaved Wikipedia citizen. Then it will be easier for us to talk to you, and your comments would get more weight as well. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact I am engaging in a debate with Paul is a sign of my being a good wiki citizen. Debate the issue at hand where Aldux only wants a certain POV, glorifying Alexander, mentioned here. Everything else is being swept away... 192.94.94.105 07:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

192.9x.xx.xxx (or how shall I adress you?), thanks for being willing to discuss this, (and thanks for signing). I think, however we should move the discussion to a more appropriate talk page. So I am going to copy your comment about Alexander above to Talk:Alexander the Great, and continue the discussion there. Paul August ☎ 14:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

[edit] My very own barnstar

My very own barnstar

My wife, bless her soul, presented me with my very own barnstar. On a recent trip to Kansas, she found it at an antique store, and bought it for me. Isn't she sweet? Paul August ☎ 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Awww. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bridesmaid Awaits Award for Attalus I waiting to appear on the main page while all his sister FA's get married and make their debut.

[edit] Re: Crap

Thank you Paul, I did indeed miswrite. The error has been corrected. ENCEPHALON 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to be of service ;-) Paul August ☎ 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psellus

Hi, thanks for cleaning up Michael Psellus as I requested. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome, thank you for solving the mystery. Paul August ☎ 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anselm Page

Paul, I noticed that you have edited the Anselm page in the past. There is now a heated dispute and the makings of an edit war. Would appreciate a scholar's input and comments on the discussion page of that article.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 12:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote/MathML bug

Try Infinity with MathML turned on. Sometimes I see the problem, sometimes not (just now I didn't, but it hasn't been edited since I did). --Trovatore 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have turned MathML on since since your comment at Hilbert's problems. I saw the problem a few times, intermittently with the test page. I've created a new template "ent2", which inserts a </div> at the beginning of the template expansion. I have not seen the problem with that template, but since the problem is intermittent, that is no guarantee that the problem is "fixed". I've edited Infinity to use that template. Please let me know if you re-experience the problem with that page. Paul August ☎ 21:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Cel es tianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

[edit] Einstein POV-pusher

Hi there. I've decided that this has all gone far enough and it is pretty clear that the POV-pusher on the Einstein/Poincaré/Hilbert pages really does have nothing to contribute and is doing nothing but wasting a lot of time. I'm compiling evidence for a RFC and probably eventually an ArbCom case, with the specific assertions that the user has 1. been engaged in rampant POV-pushing and intellectual dishonesty, and 2. been badgering and insulting other Wikipedia editors. Unfortunately compiling the evidence is very time consuming, given that it is spread out over many pages, different accounts and IP addresses, and involves sorting through dozens of diffs. If you want to take a look at it, and contribute anything you are able to, the temp page I am doing this on is User:Fastfission/RFC. Thanks for your time! --Fastfission 19:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would you kindly read before reverting

Re Sexual intercourse. I find it rather unhelpful of you to revert my edits without comment. It's against policy and not helpful in this case, where I made sensible changes that should at least be discussed. My most elaborate compliments, 87.122.1.157 22:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit by mistake. I'm sorry for the error. I was on "vandalism patrol" where I was using an admin tool (which unfortunately automatically supplies the edit summary). When on patrol, I review hundreds of edits for vandalism, making dozens of reversions, at the rate of a few seconds per review, usually without error, but alas mistakes are sometimes made. Again I'm sorry for my error. I'm glad you caught it. Paul August ☎ 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your apologies, and keep the good work. 87.122.15.55 06:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Paul August ☎ 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Undelete John Fine

This is my request that you undelete the article John Fine. Both John Fines are important in our community, and the younger John Fine is far from nonsense; he is a national competitor in Policy Debate and has had an enormous effect on the entire 'sport', if you will, especially in the Western States. I think it would be very offensive to the Western States if you simply removed the entry for a person who is truly a master at what he does and a wonderful example in his community, as well as a young person who has truly already had a notable impacet on the sport he loves. Matveiko 04:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matveiko, I've undeleted the article, and for now I have removed the speedy delete tag, since I am no longer convinced that it qualifies as a speedy delete. Be advised that the editor that nominated this for speedy deletion may very well disagree and renominate it for speedy deletion, or send it to WP:AfD. Paul August ☎ 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Another admin FCYTravis has now deleted the article. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy semi-deletion

Re: your comments to a certain page, please don't make me go to Requests for semi-arbitration. At least, not in both universes, anyway. :-) Wikipedian in hiding 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality in ancient Greece

I saw that Wikipedia had an overlapping article Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece that was actually a sub-article, covering one section of the main article. In cases like this I edit down a précis of the more narrowly defined article and insert that into the broader one, with a Main article at... heading. The subsection can be as brief as you like, as long as it reflects the major points made in the full-size version. I figure you see the point in these moves. --Wetman 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do. And I completely agree with that kind of article architecture. In this case though It looked like your abridgment had inadvertently added some text that you didn't intend. I wasn't trying to make the subsection any more brief, just eliminate any accidental additions, and I wanted to make sure that I had done so correctly. Did you check my edit? Paul August ☎ 05:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes. Quite right. I hadn't meant to drag all that in. --Wetman 05:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. Paul August ☎ 05:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your apology

(This is a reply to your apology left on my Talk page)

Thanks, Paul. I didn't take any of it personally. I was just sick of trying to navigate through the various policies, procedures, etc. and then not finding any kind of consistent approach to implementing them. My opinion is that it makes it very difficult for users like me to figure out how or where to contribute. These inconsistencies also prompted some pretty hostile discussions between myself and some other users. All of this combined to increase my stress and basically discourage me from continuing to contribute. However, I'm going to give it another go and see if I can disregard various users from disregarding the rules, policies and procedures that are implemented here. I still think that this project is a noble undertaking that I have chosen to monitor and participate in. James084 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanks

Thanks for the look at Henry Carey (writer). I know that whoever tagged it meant well, and I responded by biting, but, dang it all, this place is going -project crazy, and folks slap tags as if that were an improvement. Slapping a tag is inferior to a note on a talk page. It is when that fails that tags should be used, but, there I was, editing that article about once a week, and suddenly I find that it needs to be cleaned up to meet a higher standard? That was a bit off-putting, as that article is now the best source on the web for information on Carey. It has more information in it than the DNB, and it's less POV than the DNB. It does a better job of integrating the music and satire careers than other sources (although I wish a musical person would research him; I suppose I'll look in the Grove Dictionary some time). It's not that it's an acceptable article being told to improve to a "higher standard," but rather that I thought it was a very good article already above the standards of this place, and, without a word of what the person thought needed to be done, a tag appears, and it's supposed to stay there for 30 days and only be removed by volunteers at this project? It's breath taking. Geogre 08:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Now the person the article was "assigned to" has done some copy editing. Most of the changes are good (one I think takes emphasis away and fails to carry the same force), but still not a word on the article's talk page. Fear? Hubris? Ignorance of practice? I don't mind the improvements, but being treated as an IP editor is a bit aggravating. Geogre 10:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ton't mention it. Yes some folks just go around tagging things. From each according to his means, I guess. Writing an explanation on the talk page would require well, writing, not everyone's strong suit. It goes without saying that there are nearly a million other articles which could stand being cleaned up before any of "yours". But I guess any loving attention is a good thing. If we want to effect the culture of that project we should go over there and talk to them. I'm not sure I have the gumption at the moment however. I've also made a few tweaks to the last editor's copyediting. Please feel free to stomp on my toes with hob-nailed boots. I will defer to your better writing skills always. Paul August ☎ 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You've been doing fantastic stuff, Paul. I could feel abashed at how many mistakes I had left in, but I still take solace that there are no better sources. If I could find an image of a loup on Commons, I'd give you the Hawk Eye Editor Award. Fantastic catches. (See, on my talk page: I'm going to do a conference paper on Carey, I think. I've got to do a paper on someone, and I think he's a good candidate, given how few people know him.) Geogre 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Il n'ya pas de quoi. I'm good at detail work, by disposition as well as training (mathematics and programming), however as a consequence I sometimes miss the bigger picture. Paul August ☎ 19:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul, thanks for your further edits of the Henry Carey (writer), mine were done in a rush and your corrections are all improvements. As you suggested 'generations' was an accidental typo for 'generation'. Kcordina 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome, I'm glad you think they are improvements. Paul August ☎ 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winterberg

Thanks for taking a look at that. There are some additions made by you-know-who that I still need to review and probably revert (he is fond of inserting things into the article which are completely uncited and unverifiable, such as that Winterberg was involved in only "purely scientific" aspects of the LaRouche group, whatever that is supposed to mean) but I haven't had time to go over much. The work on the notes looks good; again, some of them got messed up because of you-know-who making modifications to the article (they were originally in the correct order). --Fastfission 21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm glad you like my additions. I'm planning to work on this article a bit more. This article helps to fill in background for the Einstein priority issues, and will help some in trying to evaluate the competing claims. Also I think our friend's contributions to this article have been more constructive, albeit with an agenda. Paul August ☎ 21:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bat Ye'or

Bat Ye'or is not a reliable historical source when it comes to saying Maimonides had converted. Every historical document that talks about this says that he and his family fled Cordoba. The wikipedia entry for him says this. Keeping information in an entry that is incorrect because there is a source for it is not reason enough to keep it if the source is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdinowitz (talk • contribs) 21:39, February 22, 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mdinowtz, I think you have me mixed up with someone else. Looking at your recent contributions and based on your message above It looks like you are talking about the article Dhimmi. My only edit to that article was to revert a bit of vandalism. I think you may have meant your message for Pecher. Regards Paul August ☎ 22:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I saw what looked like my entry with your edit but I was mistaken. Sorry about that. On the other hand, this whole thing has forced me to learn how to post references and edits. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdinowitz (talk • contribs) .

No problem. Paul August ☎ 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Little Pigs

I think you may owe 209.161.238.90 (talk • contribs) a quick apology - the material he was trying to delete appears to be silly nonsense. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right. A bit of carelessness on my part. I've left her/him a note. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 03:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Anybody could have made that mistake. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] note

It appears that 68.73.124.46 (talk • contribs) left this message on your user page in error.

==My name is John==
Does this work? I'm still experimenting, I'm quite new. Someone help me, what am I editting??

— Mar. 1, '06 [05:26] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Pages for deletion

There are two pages up for deletion, Cretan/Spartan connection and Revolution within the form. I ask for a vote of Transwiki. Thanks.WHEELER 22:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolas Courtois

Hi Paul. I've nominated this article for deletion. I see from its history that you may have reasons to believe he is notable. I invite you to join the discussion. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chan! Paul August ☎ 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABSL

Hi Nicholas. I just noticed that you speedy deleted ABSL. May I ask what were your reasons for the deletion? It is definitly not a hoax (as one editor thought) I think an articleI'm don't agree that this should have been deleted. Would you object if I undeleted it. If you still think it should be deleted then it can be sent to AfD. What do you think? Paul August ☎ 21:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've undeleted it, I just don't see how it could be so uncited on the 'net. Could you try and develop it further, to explain what it is, and why readers should care? It just seems like something for Wiktionary, in it's current state. -- user:zanimum

Thanks Nicholas. I'll see what I can come up with. Paul August ☎ 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licorne and Folsing quotes

Hi Paul, Licorne has quoted Folsing (on the Hilbert page) for a claim that in 1915 Einstein went to Hilbert for help because Einstein couldn't derive the correct field equations. This appears on the Einstein-Action page as well (unsourced). Other sources, including Folsing himself, say that Hilbert invivted Einstein to Gottingin in June-July 1915 for one week of lectures on general relativity. It was Hilbert who went to Einstein, looking for a physics problem to solve. Licorne probably doesn't have a copy of Folsing (he couldn't tell the page number where Folsing says Einstein went to Hilbert for help). Can you sort it out, with your trusty copy of Folsing? Also, good to know is whether Folsing is aware of the printer's proofs of Hilbert's paper. He seems to make no reference to them and therefore makes some mistakes, as far as I can see. Thanks. E4mmacro 07:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I'll see what I can find. Paul August ☎ 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as to why Einstein went to Göttingen (in June 1915), here is what Folsing has to say (p. 364):

… Einstein accepted an invitation to go to Göttingen for a week, where, at the request of David Hilbert and Felix Klein, he presented his generalized relativity theory in six two-hour lectures. Hilbert—who, after Poincaré's death, was unquestionably the worlds foremost mathematician—had since the winter semester of 1914–1915 devoted a seminar to the fundamentals of physics and in this context had dealt in particular with the theories of Gustav Mie and Albert Einstein.

Later (p. 369) Folsing writes about Einstein's view in the Spring and Summer of 1915, that he had already successfully completed his theory of general relativity. Folsing quotes Einstein, in May:

…general theory of relativity … To have now really reached that objective is the greatest satisfaction of my life …

Folsing continues:

… his obvious confidence was based on his presentation of the theory in the comprehensive article published six months earlier in the Proceedings of the Academy: The formal Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity. All the evidence of the next few months serves to show that, throughout the summer, he believed that in that article he had accomplished something like a definitive version of the theory. By the end of June, the mathematicians at Göttingen had "understood every detail"; and two weeks later he already had "the intention to write a special little book as an introduction to the relativity theory, its treatment aiming from the outset at a general theory of relativity" At the end of August, he was rather proud that he had "completely convinced"⁴ Felix Klein and David Hilbert in Göttingen.

He goes on to say that Einstein's confidence was further bolstered by experimental confirmation for the bending of light by gravity, quoting Einstein as saying in May that his theory had been "brilliantly confirmed"⁷. Finally Folsing writes that:

It was probably after his return from his trip to Switzerland [September] that Einstein had to get used to the idea that his formulas for gravitation could not be correct. At the beginning of October he realized "that my previous argument was deceptive."⁸

So, it seems to me, that Folsings view is inconsistent with the idea that Einstein when to Göttingen for help.

As regards to the newly discovered printer's proofs, I find nothing to suggest that Folsing was aware of them. Hope this all helps.

Paul August ☎ 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

Oi vey. A mess. Good idea, your relabeling/moving. I was trying to be even handed, but with competing versions of "even handed" going... I think that I've quoted wp:own about four times in this arbitration. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It did seem like things were getting a bit out of hand. I'm glad you approve. Paul August ☎ 23:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shout at the Devil

Well, the previous edit was either vandalism or, more likely I think, a crazy person. A lot of that stuff is simply not there. We can localize the "Milton was of Satan's party" line of thought in Byron. It was in the air, to some degree, as Blake's Marriage of Heaven and Hell show, but arguing that there is an allegorical valorization of Satan as Cromwell is just plain looney. The comparison to Achilles is telling, because Achilles is a rotten hero for modern readers precisely because he is motivated by selfishness and pride -- values that are sins in Christianity. Milton was never of Satan's party, in my opinion, and no Christian, much less Puritanical Puritan, could see pride as a point of admiration. That takes a later, less religious group.

Now me, I'd stay away from the "who's heroic" altogether. I figure the Satan problem is the problem of narrative and not authorial intent or reception. I think there are structural reasons why he has to be the most interesting character, and they don't reflect Milton's intent or the reader's desires. Instead, I see Paradise Lost as an interesting and monumental effort at redefining the Epic. Milton was all over the classical descriptions of the epic. He knew his Aristotle and Horace well, and he knew there were rules, and he was trying to work out an entirely new epic that could not and should not be read with pagan/Classical expectations.

To me, the only folks who get intoxicated by the Satan-is-a-hero stuff are either too emotionally invested or are using Milton to make their own political statements. (You can guess which camp I put the Fish called Stanley in.) Geogre 23:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 129.78.64.106

Hey, please don't block 129.78.64.106 - that's the proxy for the University of Sydney. I've unblocked it; if you have any concerns, please feel free to chat to me on my talk page. enochlau (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encephalon nom

Well, we've done it. Have a look at User:Knowledge Seeker/Encephalon nomination. We're just waiting for acceptance now. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but the rules for RFA were changed some time back; while one may create a nomination, it shouldn't be added to WP:RFA until the candidate accepts the nomination. In any case, Encephalon has previously declined nominations made without asking him first, and I preferred to give him time to answer the questions before posting the nomination on WP:RFA. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh I see. Yes I was not quite up on current procedure. Well done! Paul August ☎ 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I saw your messages to these two chaps and just want to let you know that it was actually my fault, really. I had been planning to do it Sunday afternoon, but ended up only being able to log on past midnight, IIRC. Thank you so much for all the support, it's really very kind of you. :-) —Encephalon 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. My support seems well deserved. Paul August ☎ 00:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transition monoids, model of computation?

Good call putting categories into the transition monoid entry. I'm not too sure about Category:Computational models, though; I'm not sure that viewing finite-state machines algebraically in this way is enough of a difference to qualify as a different model of computation. (Now, recognizability by a monoid is a separate issue, but I don't think anyone's written anything about that yet.) BenetD 19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it. I don't really know much about this area. I was just trying to find some appropritate categories. Paul August ☎ 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compass and straightedge

Please refer to Talk:Compass and straightedge before proceeding; then return here. Thank you.

Please see that I noted the problem on talk before starting work; there were no objections. When I finished the small edits, you wrote: ... if we were to replace "ruler" by "straightedge", the article should be rewritten to reflect that change... I absolutely agree with you and that is the next thing on my To Do list. Will you permit me to finish?

I'm upset that a mathematician would resort to the low argument of "common usage". Up to a point I endorse such a style; I'd rather see the article on Joseph Stalin so titled, rather than Ioseb Jugashvili or even worse, the Cyrillic. But this is mathematics, the study of what is true -- certainly not what is the common notion. If "straightedge" were a bizarre, technical term then I might acquiesce to "ruler"; but it is not. Indeed the correct term's meaning is self-evident, even to the layman.

Have a try at rewriting Ruler so as to make "compass and ruler" seem like the more logical choice. Let me see that text.

Please, let us not descend to "common usage" in our editing of mathematics articles. That road leads to Golden box, Pyramid, and Ball.

Please restore the article to the correct title. Please do not wait for some majority opinion to form. I would not respect any number of "votes" setting π = 3. John Reid 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

John, thanks for replying. Sorry I didn't see and reply to your post "Ruler" or "Straightedge" sooner. I did reply as soon as I saw it. I think we should discuss this further (on that pages talk page) and with more people before we do anything more. By the way I'm advocating a discussion not a vote. I'm not sure why or how you want me to rewrite ruler, it seems fine the way it is written. As regards the "common usage" issue. My only comment was that in my experience (I may be wrong) these constructions are most commonly, and by tradition called "ruler and compass constructions". If so, then according to Wikipedia policy that name should be used. In addition since technically "ruler" does not necessarily mean "calibrated ruler", the title "ruler and compass" is not technically incorrect. Nevertheless, since, as you correctly pointed out, "ruler" is usually thought of as being "calibrated", the term "ruler and compass", although (perhaps) the traditional name for such constructions and technically correct, may be misleading, and hence we may want to rename the article. I want to see what other editors think before deciding on a course of action.

On a personal note, I'm concerned that I have caused you to become upset. In any case I have thrown a monkey wrench into much of your work. For all this I am sorry. And as I said on your talk page I am happy to redo or undo any edits which become necessary once this issue is settled. I apologize for any trouble this is causing you. Paul August ☎ 00:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm upset, but it's not personal. This is an encyclopedia of fact, not a compendium of commonly-held notions or rumors. I'd hate to think I'd invested my efforts in some sort of hopped-up opinion forum; and it dismays me to think of any other editor inclining to that. I don't think of you as ill-intentioned or thoughtless; merely misguided. You never took a look at the hodgepodge of terms applied to this subject before I began cleanup.

You have your reasons and I have mine. I hope I can persuade you. I cannot think it is necessary to redo or undo any of the good work I've done thus far; all that remains is to rewrite the key article itself. On reflection, perhaps I ought to have done that first. I'd like to believe it's an error I can repair.

I'm sorry, but common usage is a knife that cuts both ways, as I noted on the relevant talk page. If you insist on common usage for "ruler and compass" then you must admit the common interpretation of "ruler"; if you insist on a strict definition of "ruler" then you open the door to the unambiguous "compass and straightedge", since you have already turned your back on common usage. It is precisely in order to avoid this sort of metaphysical thicket that I favor "straightedge".

I don't want you to rewrite Ruler; my point is in the nature of reductio ad absurdum: the article cannot be written coherently so as to support "ruler" as unmarked in the context of compass and straightedge. The passage wherin this very subject is treated makes it extremely clear why "ruler" is the incorrect choice. I believe if you deliberately attempt to reword this article so as to endorse "ruler and compass" and compare versions you will be led out of your error.

It is my position that I did not require preformed consensus in order to do the work I've done ("BB"). I saw a problem and fixed it. If all 125 related articles and 16 redirects had consistently chosen "ruler and compass" I might well have been wise to seek to overturn existing consensus; but that did not exist; nobody could agree on anything.

Having been bold and done work, I think it is you who should return the page to Compass and straightedge, permit me to finish rewriting the text, and then, if you desire, you may seek consensus for your choice. I am bringing order out of chaos; you will be exchanging one order for another.

Should you prevail, please do not omit to rewrite all 125 articles to conform. John Reid 02:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are upset. You think I am misguided, well I undoubtly am in many things ;-) I may be wrong in thinking that "ruler and compass" is the more common name for these constructions. But so far you have not presented any evidence to persuade me that I am. I think your position is that these constructions should not be called "ruler and compass" constructions because of the ambiguity in the word "ruler". That is a valid point, and I might agree with you about that. But that is beside the point. The real question is not what should they be called, but rather what are they called. Now as a matter of fact there are called both, I just happen to believe, consistent with my forty years, studying, teaching, discussing and doing mathematics, that "ruler and compass" is the more common and traditional term. But I could be wrong about that. What would help in trying to decide this question are some references (one easy one is PlanetMath which uses "ruler"). Also I would like to know what are the experiences of our other mathematics editors.

The title for the article makes the statement that, in the opinion of this encyclopedia, that title is the most common one for the subject of the article (by the way whatever prhase we decide upon, both should be mentioned in the article) However, the situation with respect to other articles is a bit different. I think, depending on the context. either phrase (or both, or others) might be appropriate.

As for the issue of consensus, no you weren't required to seek a consensus, before editing as you did, but it might have been better if you had. And one could argue that there already was a consensus. The article was created in July 2002, has been edited dozens of times by many respected editors, linked to by dozens more editors in dozens more articles, and read by who knows how many, all without apparent objection. Moving any article, especially a well established one, can be quite controversial. It is generally thought to be a good idea to seek consensus before making such a change.

Anyway, I don't intend to take any more action, until there is general agreement on the talk page about what to do about this.

Paul August ☎ 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If consensus existed, then it would have spread over all the related articles and made some sort of consistency felt there. It did not. The article in question was linked to in over a hundred articles -- and no single link or text held anything like a clear majority. Each editor, it appears, had his own justification for his own interpretation. I can't agree (in most cases) that there is any local justification for one alternate title that overrides project-wide style. Let the article on Carl Friedrich Gauss use the same text as that on Transcendental number.

At this moment -- unless someone's been going round undoing my work -- all linking articles link directly to Compass and straightedge and every article's mention of the subject outside of a link reflects the same usage. (This with a few exceptions, each with some distinct justification.)

I have not, should not, and shall not, attempt to show which term is more common. It's irrelevant. Seven monkeys swinging from a tree all shouting "coconut" does not make it so. There is no limit to the number of things which are commonly called by an incorrect, ambiguous, misleading name.

It's clear that no argument will prevail with you that rests on truth and accuracy; you are only interested in majority opinion. I can't argue with you on your ground and you won't listen to me on mine. That's fine; I don't insist that anyone agree with me.

If you truly feel that your choice of title is correct, then don't stop at undoing only a portion of my work; undo it all. If you think it's better to have 16 different variations of the title, then simply revert my edits as you go. If you think your choice should prevail uniformly, then make that change; now that I've done the hard work, you can probably do it with a bot. But please don't stop in the middle, throwing a monkey wrench into the gears just before I complete the job.

I'll ask again: Please return the article to what is now its canonical title, as shown in every other article in the project. Seek consensus for some other change, if you like. Or be bold and fix all these pages to suit yourself. John Reid 22:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

John, with due respect, you are being unnecessarily harsh in your comments. As you said, each of us have their own views on how the article should be called. The matter is being discussed, and I suggest you wait a bit, and don't take things as close to heart. As far as "fixing" those pages to point to whatever article name is decided, it can be easily done with a bot, so please don't stress so much on that in your arguments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

John, the proposed move has been listed on WP:RM. So it would violate policy for me to move the page now. If a consensus emerges, then I would be willing to move the page, and fix any links or redirects. There is an active discussion ongoing at Talk:Ruler and compass constructions, I urge you to join the discussion there.

I'm more than happy to listen to any arguments you care to make. I think I have, and I think I've understood them. Basically what you are saying is that "ruler and compass constructions" is a misnomer. And I might be willing to agree with you on that (although even there the situation is mirky, since these constructions have been around longer than English, it is entirely possible that it has only become a misnomer recently with the changing meaning of the word "ruler"). However, what I don't agree with is that, Its being a misnomer means that Wikipedia should not use it for the title. Wikipedia is not in the business of correcting misnomers. This is not just my opinion this conforms to standard Wikipedia practices and policies. Wikipedia titles should be whatever they are most commonly called, even if the most common name is a misnomer. See for example WP:UE. (Thus our article about racial prejudice against Jews is titled Anti-Semitism, even though "anti-Semitism" is a misnomer since not all Semites are racially Jewish.)

Understand that I'm only talking about titles of articles here. Elsewhere, there is more latitude. For example one may choose to describe things rather than name them. So for example if I wanted to describe these constructions I might write "constructions using only a straightedge and compass" for clarity, while if I wanted to refer to them by name I might write "traditionally called ruler and compass constructions", perhaps noting what is meant by "ruler". Or if I was writing for mathematicians I would just write "ruler and compass constructions".

Paul August ☎ 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. (having just read Oleg's comment) I agree, no need to "stress" ;-) it will all workout for the best eventually. Paul August ☎ 00:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oleg, I apologize to you and to Paul if either of you feel I've been uncivil. I haven't expended needless words in empty courtesy but be assured I have the utmost respect for Paul's professional abilities. If you can tell me in exactly what way I have been "harsh", I will endeavor to correct that.

The only reason it now is bot-easy to correct a hundred articles from the correct form to some "common usage" is that I already went through by hand and fixed them. This was grueling, boring, tedious work; it was very difficult for me to stay on task, since so many of the articles I touched have more pressing and glaring needs. I don't like to think it was effort wasted.

Paul, I agree that the time is past to settle the matter "out of court". Now it's going to go through the RM wrangle and that's that. I don't really feel up to a vehement defense of my position in any forum and whatever happens, it's just one thing. I expect you to support your position vigorously and I hope you will never read into my considered defense any faint resemblance to a personal comment. I simply feel that this is a point of fact, not of opinion. John Reid 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to grind away at my preference but to ensure there's no misunderstanding of my intent in writing Inconsistency makes us look like fools and amateurs. I feel this is very true but it's not intended as a personal assault nor do I believe we are fools; at least some of us are not amateurs. It's a matter of perception.

I don't find good justification for a wide range of terms used to describe a subject, regardless of context. I might go so far as to endorse perhaps 3 such: one to be used in articles directly connected to the subject, one for those in the same general field, and one for those whose connection to the subject is tenuous, exceptional, trivial, or accidental. Even so I would seek a term that had the broadest possible applicability and seek to extend it rather than alter it to fit.

If you browse my contribs on this subject you'll see that I have managed to rewrite nearly every related article, near and far, to use the preferred text. In many cases I retained the word "construction". Although I feel it's superfluous to a reader with background, one without may be brought to some sort of comfort or recognition with the addition. Note however that I eliminated all hyphenated phrases; I can think of no context that demands them. I also eliminated the plural of "construction" in every case; construction is an art and a theory which does not admit of count. Yes, it can also be taken as a thing accomplished, which may reasonably be pluralized; but this is unnecessary when referring to the subject as a whole -- it's only appropriate when speaking of this particular construction or that, then another, then both together. Nor is there any justification for inversion of word order -- none at all. Thus I reduced 16 alternate terms to 2; one an extension of the other.

In a very few circumstances I let stand the additional needless word "unmarked"; this was usually in dab pages or articles so distantly related that I felt the emphasis was justified; or when the necessary condition was itself under discussion. And in one case -- Ruler -- I allowed the link to stand as ruler and compass construction as the very passage in that article is an indictment of that usage.

Obviously, that's how I think it should be done in order to present an image of competency, reliability, and professionalism. Self-consistency is a superficial but surprisingly reliable way to determine the authority and accuracy of a source; it never fails to amaze me how many cranks and fools cannot keep their terms straight. I hope we may distinguish ourselves. John Reid 03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you know what Emerson said about consistency … ;-)

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. (emphasis mine) John Reid 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Paul August ☎ 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulleting/non-bulleting footnotes

Hi Paul. In the Dionysus article, you removed the bullets in front of the footnotes. I thought they made it look more readable and was following prior practice from other articles. The Wikipedia footnotes guidelines seem to show a numeric indentation. Cf. Wikipedia:Footnotes. I think they might be more legible with bullets. Any ideas ? Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bob. Styles vary. But I've seen lot's and lot's of notes sections in WP (and elsewhere) and I don't ever recall seeing bulleted notes before. (By the way I think the most common practice is to title the section "Notes" rather than "Footnotes") Can you point to some examples? The bullets seem unnecessary to me since each note is already "set off" by the note numeral. Anyway If you really think it looks better go ahead and add them back ;-)

Hi Paul. Thanks for your kind reply. Yes, styles vary. Hmm. No problem with "Notes" v. "Footnotes". I'll have to come up with some older pages which I haven't edited with bulleted footnotes if I can as examples. I guess since the ref/note mechanism and the current encouraged mechanism (ref, /ref, reference/) by Wikipedia all seem to indent since they use numbered lists rather than the rf/ent mechanism. So that's where I think I remember seeing indentation first: the ref/note mechanism where people used numbered lists -- which indent. Don't know ultimately which is more visually useful. Thanks for your thoughts. Time for reflection. ;) BTW, is the new non-template mechanism as documented on Wikipedia:Footnotes considered a standard for Wikipedia use? Or just a recommendation? As you correctly say, styles vary widely within Wikipedia articles. Thanks again and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I haven't been following the discussions and developments all that much. I need to reread WP:CITE. and WP:FN, But I would say that there are definitely no firm standards yet. Many folks prefer in-line Harvard style citations over footnotes used just for citations. As for footnoting styles, the non-template system is gaining steam. But my personal preference is for rf/ent since I think that system looks "best" (I really hate those up arrow thingies ;-) and (aside from having to manually number) is more convenient. But each to his own ;-) Paul August ☎ 20:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. I agree with what you've said. I do also find the up arrow thingees a bit odd. I have a hard time stuffing a long footnote in the article proper as well. It seems to disturb the raw editing process, although it comes out properly in the seen final article. Indeed, thanks for your thoughts as ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apr–Jun 2006

[edit] Mr.T

I dont care if you hate him, just show some respect for him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.49.190.161 (talk • contribs) 20:28, April 3, 2006 (UTC)

I don't hate him. What is your source that he is dead? In any case, I'm sorry but your "Rest in peace" message, is inappropriate — it is not encyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you block this user or 24 hours, or semi-protect the article? The Mr. T thing was an April Fools, just like this character. Sparky 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for violation of 3RR. Paul August ☎ 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Job, thanks. Sparky 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logical Fallacy Edit

Hi Paul,

I was wondering why you have removed the link to [Humbug! Online], from the Logical Fallacy entry, when this weblog specifically deals with logical fallacies?

Including a fallacy list section, all with actual examples of:

   * Appeal to Authority
   * Argument by Artifice
   * Argument by Slogan
   * Argument to Consequences
   * Begging the Question
   * Browbeating
   * Burden of Proof
   * Burden of Solution
   * Cultural Origins
   * Exaggerated Conflict
   * Factoid Propagation
   * False Analogy
   * False Attribution
   * False Cause; Correlation Error
   * False Compromise
   * False Dichotomy
   * False Dilemma
   * False Positioning
   * Gibberish
   * Impugning Motives
   * LAME claim
   * Misuse of Information
   * Moral Equivalence
   * Moving the Goalposts
   * Naturalistic Fallacy
   * Non Sequitur
   * Observational Selection
   * Personal Abuse
   * Poisoning the Well
   * Popular Opinion
   * Reductio Ad Absurdum
   * Sanctimony
   * Self Defeating Argument
   * Simple-Minded Certitude
   * Single Cause
   * Slippery Slope
   * Special Pleading
   * Stacking the Deck
   * Unfounded Generalization
   * Weasel Words

There is little difference between this site and Fallacy Files. It is an excellent resource, specifically designed to remove the esoteric language used to describe fallacies and put them in lay terms.

Also, if you will allow me, I'll add links to: http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/categories/37-Fallacy-of-the-Week and http://thenonsequitur.com/, and http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm, which have a similar purpose - dealing with fallacies.

Regards - Theo Clark (Humbug! Online).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theo Clark (talk • contribs) 05:05, April 6, 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Clark. In my opinion the link to your web site [16] does not seem particularly useful. For obvious reasons, we try to limit links to web sites with commercial interests. For example we don't want people adding links as a way of advertising or promoting some product, or trying to generate hits for their web sites, to increase their ad revenue. I'm sure you understand. Paul August ☎ 16:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul,

You say, "In my opinion…". Could you please elaborate on that somewhat? (Given you are clearly interested in fallacies, I'm sure you'd agree opinions without justification lack merit.) I see no significant difference between Humbug Online and The Fallacy Files, or the other sites I've added. They are all useful sites apropos to deepening one's understanding of informal fallacies and using an understanding of fallacious reasoning in everyday situations.

Yes, a website about fallacies, linked to from the wikipedia entry on fallacies will get a few hits from it… I'm not too sure as to your point here? That is the point isn't it? Surely this means wikipedia is a useful research tool - it's point?

As far as the commercial interests goes, the link to the book leads offsite, and more importantly, there is substantially more content on the blog (now, as it keeps being added to) than in the book. And surely wikipedia users are entitled to make up their own minds? (I am aware of spam issues, and blatant attempts of commercialisation, but I'd assume you, having had a good look at the blog so you were able to make an informed decision, would realise my genuine interest in fallacious thinking given the frequency and the detail of posts.)

I've added some of the above to a discussion about this Talk:Logical_fallacy#Links, so I would appreciate it if a few editors made this decision, not just one - otherwise it seems somewhat arbitrary.

Regards,

Theo Clark 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Theo. I think taking this issue to the talk page is the right thing to do. As you say it is not just my decision ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, and I am genuinely motivated by the need for more "critical thinkers" out there (I'm a Science Teacher), which is what got me into fallacies in the 1st place. Theo Clark 17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your desire to improve critical thinking is a noble one. There are lots of opportunities for that here ;-) I wish you all the best. Paul August ☎ 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonardo da Vinci

While I agree with the intention behind your moving section Relationships to after Da Vinci's achievements, this has introduced a small problem, namely that Melzi and Salai(no) appear in the text without having been introduced; in particular the significance of "Salai was not forgotten" is unclear. Perhaps you can think of a way of addressing this. By the way, I don't understand the sudden shift from "Salaino" to "Salai". Articles in other languages that mention the character at all appear to only use "Salai", without mention that this is a nickname. The online Italian dictionaries that I consulted don't have an entry for "salai(no)". Lambiam ^Talk 12:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lambian. Yes I see the problem. My edit was simply to revert the previous anon's edit. Looking back in the edit history, I now see that Haiduc had just the day before re-ordered things — which is a good idea — but can't be accomplished as easily as just moving the sections, as you point out. We will have to fix that. I haven't got time to try to fix things myself at moment (perhaps you could ask Haiduc to help?) Also I have no immediate answer to the Salai/Salaino question you raise, but I will have a look later. You could also ask Aldux he is Italian and an Italian History scholar, he might know the answer to this, or of course raise the question on the talk page. Regards Paul August ☎ 17:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul, nice to hear you :-) It's all okay here, and I'm happy to hear you're returning to Monterosso. As for the help I gave to Lambiam, that was a pleasure. Ciao! --Aldux 14:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Rabid_xmas_dog.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rabid_xmas_dog.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 13:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories in userspace

Hi! I noticed that in your sandbox User:Paul_August/Sandbox you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:PlanetMath sourced articles and Category:Mathematical logic. Could I suggest that you deactivate them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it.".) Cheers, Ziggurat 23:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now fixed this, thanks. Paul August ☎ 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Blessed Event

So, it appears that Attalus I is going to be on the main page. She's walking down the aisle at last. (April 25, 2006.) Congratulations. Geogre 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Having become resigned to being ever the bridesmaid, she is again nervous. She now expects someone will point out that, in fact, she is no lady for the altar, but rather an old whore deserving to be FARCed. I suppose I must now stand vigil the night before seeking expiation for our sins? Paul August ☎ 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In true ancient fashion, I suspect that the sheets will be a gory display for all after all the visitors to the featured article on the main page decide to alter things here and there. (More and my metaphor would be unDonne.) Geogre 03:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

While my beloved was losing her maidenhead, I was in an ancient Calabrian hill town (senza internet) so I missed the live proceedings. But I've since seen the videotape and it was most gory. Paul August ☎ 14:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Whore or not, she was very moved by the attention. —Encephalon 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes she was moved ... to ATTALUS OF PERGAMOM and back again! Paul August ☎ 14:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Hey Paul, it was such a pleasure seeing Attalus I on the main page. It's deserved a spot forever. Here's to more of your contribs being mainpaged.:-) Cheers —Encephalon 13:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Paul August ☎ 14:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your revertion... Gödel Incompleteness Theorem

The following has been copied to Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems#PCE's doubts, if you wish to add to this discussion please do so there. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 12:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The proof which I reproduced and referenced on the page is published in print as well as online at many, many websites so I doubt there would be a copyright violation if the proof were published here. I just have not had time to see if it is already published in the Wikipedia but may have time later. The purpose for including the text of the proof in the body of the article is simply to make it easier for the reader to follow the refutation. Although not as easy to follow I have included a link to an external website where the proof is published and I will not revert your deletion of the proof on the body of the article unless or until a Wikipedia reproduction is found.

The refutation however is not copyrighted and is submitted in accordance with the GFDL -- PCE

Hello. The proof outline you inserted is copied verbatim from Infinity and the Mind by Rudy Rucker, which is copyrighted text, publishing it in Wikipedia could be a copyright violation. Your "refutation" is an apparent violation of WP:NOR. Paul August ☎ 13:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Message From: "Rudy Rucker" <rudy@rudyrucker.com> To: "Honesty is the BEST policy." <pce3@ij.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: Re: Permission to reproduce Godel Incompleteness Theorem proof

I don't mind if you quote this page; I think it's all over the web anyway. Do look at a printed copy of the book and make sure you've quoted it accurately, as typos may have crept in.

I also notice you say you want to "refute" the theorem. I am absolutely certain that your refutation will be fallacious. You have no idea how many people have written me over the years with incorrect refutations! One thing to keep in mind is that my passage is only a suggestive summary of the argument, which is a bit more refined. When you have the entry up, send me a link, so I can add a comment defending myself and Godel, should I have the inclination and the time.

Thanks for your interest in my work,

Rudy R.

At 02:34 AM 5/3/2006, you wrote: >Hi Rudy, > >I would like to ask your permission to reproduce >the following excerpt from your book: Infinity >and the Mind. under the GNU license at the >Wikipedia site: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_L icense >so that it will be easier for readers to follow >a discussion of the proof's refutation. If this >is okay please reply and if not then I will >simply rely upon an external link to a site where it can be found. > >Thanks,

-- PCE 02:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

see User_talk:Trovatore#Godel and User_talk:Aleph4#Your_reversion_of_G.C3.B6del for other places this discussion is taking place (might be nice if all three discussions were moved to the talk page). -lethe ^{talk +} 02:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to carry out a conversation about your refutations of an author's work. Your refutation is original research, and so is not allowed. If you want to get comments on why your refutation is wrong, we'd be happy to help you at Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Mathematics. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In regard to the WP:NOR it appears that in terms of items 1,2,4,5 you may very well be right so I will exclude my refutation until such time as I can meet items 7 using a "reputable" publication or item 5 using something other than the validity of the refutation itself. -- PCE 03:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good. Paul August ☎ 12:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminders + Suggestion...

([17]) When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added.

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I should really floss more often as well. Paul August ☎ 02:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for reverting vandalism on IPod== ==Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. Eagle talk 03:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am quite familiar with the various warning templates, and their usage. But I often don't add them to the editors talk page. It depends on how much time I want to devote to such activities. Paul August ☎ 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eventology

Hi, you are correct that there are sources for this article, which on its face suggests that it is not OR. However, note that all of the references are by the editor who created the page. This is what struck me as being OR about it, although technically you are correct. Well, I guess this thing will find its way to AfD and I suspect I know what its fate will be...:) -- Deville (Talk) 19:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please talk something in the below link??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exclusive_disjunction#How_did_this_get_called_.22Exclusive_Disjunction.22.3F

Let's discuss which term is better!!QQ 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi QQ, thanks for the invitation to talk I've replied on Talk:Exclusive disjunction. Paul August ☎ 16:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you raise the vote of moving Sheffer Stroke to Logical NAND??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheffer_stroke#Name_Change_:_Sheffer_Stroke_.E2.86.92_Logical_NAND

if you think "Sheffer Stroke" is less common than "Logical NAND"??QQ 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi QQ, I'll take a look when I get a change. Paul August ☎ 17:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think moving Sheffer Stroke to Logical NAND is not possible, by wikipedia's historical reason...QQ 18:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think moving Negation to Logical negation is wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Negation

Could you please talk about it in the above link??

In my opinion, if you think moving article EACH TIME requires discussion, you should talk to the committee of wikipedia.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by QQ (talk • contribs) 17:52, May 28, 2006 (UTC)

I've given my thoughts on the merits of the move on Talk:negation.

As for whether moving a page requires discussion or not, the simple answer is no not always, moving pages which are likely to be non-controversial, like simple misspellings etc. usually don't require any discussion. However for other moves (like the move of negation), it is always best to start a discussion on the talk page first.

Paul August ☎ 18:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suslin

Hi Paul,

The transliterations "Suslin" and "Souslin" are both frequently seen, though I think I see "Suslin" a bit more often. We don't seem to have a bio on him; that would be a nice addition (can't find too much on Google). --Trovatore 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I believe it is prononced something like "Soosleen" which favors the spelling "Souslin". But I think "Suslin" is much more common, on Wikipedia at least, and yes a Suslin article would be good. Paul August ☎ 05:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert on Mathematics.

Hi, Paul. I have to say something about article. Before about 2 or 3days ago, I saw that my edit was reverted by you. I mean I tell about this[18] . That means you reverted my edits. I just changed Understand and describing change into Understand and Describing Change. I don't know why you reverted back to last version. You considered this is vandalism. But, I didn't attempt to vandalize the article. Anyways. Leave me message on my discussion's page No.64. Ok? Daniel5127, 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. Yes I reverted your edit to mathematics. I didn't necessarily consider your edit to be vandalism, but I did consider the capitalization of "Describing Change" as inappropriate. It would have been better if I had written an edit summary explaining this, I don't actually recall my revert, but I'm afraid I was probably just being lazy. I'm sorry and I apologize if you felt you were wrongly being accused of vandalism. Paul August ☎ 05:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's ok. I accept your apology. But It is key concept. Because someone already mentioned that. Basically, it is key concept like Understand and describing into Understand and Describing. Anyways, Thanks for providing the evidence that you reverted back to last version. Reply on my talk page. Daniel5127, 05:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from Bernard Haisch

I am ready to present justifications for each of those changes, but sincerely hope you and Hillman might simply accept them as reasonable so that I don't need to waste more hours on this. There is one additional change that I think is fair: to substitute "non-mainstream" for the pejorative, value laden term "fringe."

Otherwise I think we have come to an entry that is accurate and fair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haisch (talk • contribs) 16:47, June 11, 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bernard. I will reply at Talk:Bernard Haisch. By the way, as a courtesy to other editors, can you please "sign" your talk page posts by typing four tilde's "~~~~"? The software (under the default settings) will replace the four tildes with your username, together with a time and date stamp (like the one following my post here). Regards — Paul August ☎ 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Paul, could you please use this version for your comparision? Presently your section in Haisch's user talk page makes it look like I simply reverted the version by Haisch, which is not true. You might also see my user talk page, since I think that if you look into this, I have in fact been highly responsive to Haisch's concerns, I just don't think he should be allowed to write his own profile here. Therefore, I think the version I cited above should be the basis for your revised revision. Also, could you explain in Talk:Bernard Haisch what you did after your new revision? TIA ---CH 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris. The link you provided above for "this version" points to a previous version of Talk:Bernard Haisch, so I'm not sure what you mean by "use" it for comparison. The two versions of Bernard Haisch I compared were: 02:00, June 11, 2006 Hillman, which was the version created by your most recent edit, and 04:50, June 11, 2006 Paul August, which was the version created by my most recent edit (with Haisch making this edit in between). My intent was to compare the differences between your last version (which I assumed corresponded to a version with which you were reasonably content) and the current version (with which Haisch seems reasonably content) to try to produce a version we can all live with. If there is some better version to compare, please prode the link, or the date and time stamp. Thanks.

I didn't think I wrote anything that implied that you had revereted, and upon rereading it, I can't see what you are refering to, can you point me to any language that seems to imply that? Anyway I didn't intend that and I apologise if I somehow left that impression. Nor was that section meant to be any sort of criticism of you (or anyone for that matter). I would be happy to rephrase anything I wrote there to make it more clear.

As for your request for me to explain what I did. Do you mean what edits I made? Here is a diff of all my edits following Haisch's edit: [19] As you can see they were all minor copyedits. If you want me to explain any of them (or anything else) I'd be happy to ;-)

About the article itself, I have no strong feelings about any of the differences between your version and Haisch's version. I just think it would be helpful to discuss the differences on the talk page and see if we can't come up with something which is acceptable to all of us. I have been following this discussion for awhile, and I though I see if I could help out. I hope I can ;-)

Paul August ☎ 23:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate your continued involvement in getting this article to be factual and unbiased. Christine keeps letting her bias show through and does not even see it (see the latest on the Bernard Haisch article talk page). Haisch 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I plan to stay involved for awhile at least. I think I understand your concerns and I'm prepared to try to address them on the talk page of that article. For now I would prefer if we all could discuss any substantive changes on the talk page first before editing the article. To that end I have reverted your last edit for now, I hope you don't mind. Please join the point-by-point discussion on Talk:Bernard Haisch. By the way if you have any wiki-related questions I'd be happy to try and answer them. Paul August ☎ 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How do we do this? Would you mind terribly making an updated list of the differences so that we have a current point of reference. I feel really lost and overwhelmed by this discussion scattered across many pages. Actually, Paul, I really do think the kind and ethical thing would be to work backwards from my version. It is my reputation that has been attacked and here I am fighting an uphill battle. I am really beginning to see the dark side of Wikipedia. Please do consider re-reverting to mine to work down from that... please. Haisch 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I was working on an updated list of differences when I saw your post above. As for starting with your version and working from there, I've already proposed that but without much success, but I will see what I can do. I'm hopeful we can work things out on the talk page there. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your intervention. But what gives Christine Hillman the right to set the terms? You have as much right as she does. And what about my rights? Now that I see this process up close, I can begin to appreciate those who were tainted as "commies" by McCarthy. That's how I see her fixation on the obviously biased term "fringe." Have you seen "Good Night and Good Luck?" Haisch 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Chris doesn't get to "set the terms", we all (including you) set the terms by consensus, so I have to consider Chris's concerns as well as yours. As I said I will see what I can do. If you feel strongly enough you can revert back to "your version", I won't revert again, but someone else might, in which case you could revert again … but see Wikipedia:Edit war and WP:3RR. However I strongly urge you to please give the discussion on the talk page a chance for at least a day or so, to see if any progress can be made there. The article has already changed significantly based upon the points you have raised so far. I am confident that that process can continue.

By the way, I know in a case like this, when you think your reputation is being attacked, it can be difficult to remain civil (which by the way I think you have done for the most part). In particular though, please try not to make this about the individual editors involved (see WP:AGF and WP:NPA), whether accurate or not, negative characterizations of fellow editors or assumptions concerning their motives are unproductive.

Paul August ☎ 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will await your updated list of differences on the talk page of the article, and then give my reasons for each one. Thanks for your efforts. It is genuinely appreciated. Haisch 18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any objection to my putting up a "disputed notice" on the article page until these issues are resolved?69.107.150.126 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Thought I was logged in but I wasn't.Haisch 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. That is probably a good idea. Paul August ☎ 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you, and welcome to you too! -Dan 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Haisch-Journal of Scientific Exploration

Hi, Paul, I don't think anyone can discuss anything with Haisch until he calms down and agrees to play by our rules WP:CIV-WP:AGF. I think I have bent over backwards to be helpful to him as a newbie but his childish insults are beginning to grow tiresome. Please note that I have urged him several times to review our policies for talk page behavior.

I made a good regarding the version of Bernard Haisch I cited in my previous message. This would be too confusing to try to explain, so let's start again.

I have reverted to my most recent version and am willing to discuss line by line, but only after Haisch has taken a few days to calm down. I don't think the differences between my version and his are really that huge, but I resist the idea that he should be given license to rewrite his own wikibiography in his own words, since I think this compromises WP:NPOV.

In the service of our readers, I think it is important that our articles should strive to be readable as well as fair and factually accurate, and that is why I think it is best that I implement any changes the WP community feels are neccessary in Bernard Haisch: comparing his versions and mine I think it is obvious that I am the better writer, at least on this subject, and since I wrote the original version I also can more easily see where to fit in new material in a way which respects the flow of ideas.

Just to be clear: do you disagree with the principle that the subject of a wikibiography should be discouraged from himself writing or rewriting his own wikibiography? Please note that everyone appears to agree that the subject can contribute on the talk page to express concerns, suggest factual corrections, or describe changes he desires. However, as I say, I think it is best if more neutral editors make any changes to the article itself. ---CH 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I have no major disagreements with the guidelines set down in WP:AUTO. But I don't think we should prohibit an editor from making any edits at all. At any rate I have some concerns of my own about the Bernard Haisch article, as expressed on Talk:Bernard Haisch. Can you please respond to my talk page posts there? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I specifically said that I don't deny Haisch the right to suggest changes in the talk page. And of course he has the right to make edits to articles on topics which are not controversial or in which he is not directly invovled. I am saying that it would be best if he confine his participation regarding his own wikibio to the talk page, however. Hope this is clear now.---CH 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant any edits at all to Bernard Haisch. Anyway I don't think we really disagree about this. I'm perfectly happy to ask and encourage Haisch to refrain from editing that article, and as you suggest, instead make suggestions for changes on the talk page. However at the moment I'm really more concerned about the changes that I want to make to the article. Can you tell me why you have reverted the changes that I made to the article? Did you read my comments posted on the talk page first? Paul August ☎ 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul, please help. Hillman has taken down the Disputation banner. That should certainly be my right to display. This is inappropriate behaviour on Hillman's part.Haisch 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it's back now, and Chris has also added your postdoc info, so let's see what developes. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have responed to the latest version. I think we are converging at last. Thanks. Haisch 19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and you are welcome. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have again replied.Haisch 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belton House

Hey, Paul, long time. Noticing your copyedit to Belton House, I got worried that I might have somehow overwritten your changes, when I saved my Footnote Frenzy edit, because in fact there isn't anything different between here (mine) and here (yours) (bar only a shortened paragraph space or something). I didn't get an edit conflict, but sometimes one mysteriously fails to, and the server was altogether blowing hot and cold yesterday. Alternatively, I suppose you might have been working in a text editor and inadvertently saved The Wrong Version or something. Anyway, I just thought you might want to check it out. Best, Bishonen | talk 09:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Hey yourself Bish. No you didn't overwrite my edits. They were just so tiny that you couldn't see them! I removed an extraneous period following "<ref>Nicolson, 148.</ref>" (note number 1), and an extra space before <ref>Nicolson, 148.</ref>" (note number 5). Just the kind of edits I'm good at. Mostly I just wanted to applaud your edit, since I think it is bad practice to mix notes with references. I'm afraid the "<ref>" tag is misnamed. Double best, Paul August ☎ 14:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I got an email from Fil, he seems to be much improved health wise.

Fil's better? That's so great! :-) Bishonen | talk 14:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Meetups, events, local chapters

Hiya Paul,

There's currently some renewed discussion about whether and how to set up [a] US wikimedia chapter[s]. Among other things this could help better organize meetups, gatherings at large events and cons, and local outreach. I'm notifying people who have been actively involved in local meetups; if you are interested, there is a quiet mailing-list and a meta-page on the topic... both of which could use input and ideas. +sj + 17:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from Haisch

Once again, thank you for your intervention.

Could you clarify the issue regarding Hillman's proper name. I believe I am using her correct name.

All necessary biographical information on me is available at CV. With regard to your suggestion that "as much as you think Chris' behaviour has been inappropriate, I think saying so is probably unhelpful" that is part of the problem. No one should be expected to sit back and be passive when one's carrer is being inappropriately misconstrued. I have tried and will continue to be civil, and indeed appreciative for assistance from you. But I maintain that Hillman has shown enough bias to warrant ceasing further involvement with my entry. But once again, thank you.Haisch 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, have a look at the Discussion page of the Journal of Scientific Exploration by others than me and you will see further evidence of NPOV violation by Hillman.Haisch 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And again you are welcome. As far as I know Hillman is this person, and is a "he". In any case Hilman goes by "Chris". Paul August ☎ 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that I am this mysterious entity, and that I generally go by "Chris" :-/ ---CH 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think my good friend Larry Sanger created a Frankenstein when he set up this anonymous editing. You see, my career is totally out in the open and it would be really nice if Wikipedians were not allowed to be so shadowy (note that I did not say shady, a different connotation). I would prefer to deal with people whose identity I actually know, as all of you know mine. There is an unfair asymmetry here. As for the Hillman nomenclature, Chris apparently made the same transition one of my best friends made, but my friend did everything in the open and managed to continue a highly successful career in astrophysics in her new persona, which I greatly admired. There was no attempt to become "this mysterious entity." Haisch 05:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humphrey Bogart

I don't want to edit your words, but the nickname for Humphrey Bogart is "Bogie", not "Boogie". Makes a difference! :-) --KSmrq^T 13:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes quite! ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Short and criptic. ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. ;-p Fixed now. I'll deal with the bot later... Misza 13 ^{T C} 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had some experience with unruly bots. It's tragic: When Bots Go Bad. — Paul August ☎ 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jul–Sep 2006

[edit] Signing

I see that I typed an extra ~ at Talk:Mathematics. Thanks for fixing it for me. JPD (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, we all do it ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hay

Stop vandalising over on wikiquote. KaIki 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hard to stop when I've never started ;-) You must have me confused with someone else ;-) I've never edited on wikiquote. Paul August ☎ 03:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone must have stole your account, have a look. KaIki 03:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I saw, Thanks for blocking that account. Makes me think I should open a dummy account on all our "sister" projects. Paul August ☎ 04:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The above messages were made by an impersonator who has created a user name using an uppercase "I" to appear like the lowercase "L" in my username. This vandal seems intent on being a pathetic nuisance here and on other projects, is to some extent associated with the IP 216.164.203.90, and seems to take an infantile delight in devising childish hoaxes: vandalizing pages under various usernames and deceiving people with feigned sincerity about problems being caused under others. ~ Kalki 05:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, more convoluted than I thought ;-) Paul August ☎ 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:KaIki. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lethe, and thanks for signing for me (twice!) over at User talk:Hillman ;-) Paul August ☎ 05:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Cup

Thanks for the message - It was a thrilling time, something to remember forever. Giano | talk 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War?

Hi, Paul, unfortunately I missed until just now your comment on my user talk page about the "lame edit war". I am very sorry that apparently you took offense. I guess I failed to explain that (1) my reference to a "lame edit war" was tongue in cheek (and in any case, it takes two to edit war, so I was laughing at myself too) (2) the "edit war" derived from differing assumptions: you believe that the section title describes the first comment in that section, while I felt it should describe the tensor/content of the discussion. In any case, I am not so wedded to the latter belief that I would wish to truly offend you (or anyone) over such a trivial issue, nor do I want to forego your continued commentary in the ongoing discussion there. So, sorry, and please come back whenever you like! Even if you want to express disagreement with something I said, since I probably benefit more from that type of comment, which can help me hone my arguments or clarify my thinking. BTW, if it helps, I reverted the section title and will stop toying with it.---CH 04:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. Thanks for changing the section title back to the way I originally wrote it, I appreciate that very much.

Yes I was offended by your claim that I was "edit warring", both in your "lame edit war" comment, and your edit summary of "hope Paul August ready to stop edit warring over question mark in section title". I accept that you are sorry, and given your statement above, I don't think you were trying very seriously to offend, instead I think you were taking something lightly which you should not. Please try to see things from my point of view. I think that edit warring is a very bad thing. It is something I take very seriously. It is something which I don't want to engage in, or be accused of. You write that you were only joking, well it didn't seem like it to me, and I think that it might not have seemed so to other readers of your page. And I would suppose that given your reputation as a serious and reliable editor, that many readers would simply take your word for it, and assume that I had in fact been "edit warring". So joking or not, you have probably done some slight damage to my reputation on Wikipedia.

As for the issue that provoked this so-called "edit war", I added the following comment to your page, which I titled Wikipedia is not so bad:

"I'm sorry that Chris seems to have lost confidence in the encyclopedia. Chris has made extraordinary contributions to WP and as I said above I would be very disappointed if Chris leaves for good. I would also be disappointed if any of the intelligent voices commiserating here decided to follow.

"From where I stand, things are not so bad. In my two years, and 24,000 edits, in the areas I have some familiarity with — mathematics, classical history, English literature — WP's content has steadily gotten better. I have also seen many editors come and go. Perhaps that indicates a problem with WP's culture or methods, or perhaps it's just human nature. However, WP will continue to evolve and transform in ways we cannot predict, but it will not die, or at least its content won't. It is already the best online mathematics encyclopedia, and I'm sure the same is true for other areas of WP (e.g. popular culture). It is easy to consult therefore it will be consulted. The more it becomes the source of information, the more important it will be for that information to be correct, and the more motivated people will be to insure that that information is correct.

"Anyway, I could "go on" but I won't ;-) I don't wish to presume that people are particularly interested in my views, nor do I expect to change anyone else's views, so I will just wish Chris, and everyone else, the best of luck in whatever they choose to do.

You then decided to re-title my comments "Is wikipedia really doomed?". I restored my original title, then you, after toying with a section title containing "It's worse than bad, it is the deadliest enemy of everything I most believe in", changed it to "The title of this section is disputed" (which I found amusing, but provocative). I then told you on your talk page that I though it was "a bit rude" to change the words that I had written, you responded that you were only "joking", but that you preferred "a more neutral section title". I replied that the "title I chose for my comments accurately describes the opinion my comments expressed. I know you disagree but please don't change my words? OK?" And for the second time I restored my original title. After a couple more days of seemingly respectful discussion, you decided to change my title by adding a question mark at the end. I restored my title for the third time, and you again appended a question mark.

You have argued that a section title should express "the views of all contributors to that section". I think this is a novel position, and in the many hundreds of discussions I've been involved in, I don't think I've ever seen anybody espouse this view, or change anyone else's title. Nevertheless I tried to accommodate your concern about the section title not expressing your views, by again restoring my title, and moving the replies to my comments to their own section, titled "Wikipedia is not so bad? (or whatever anybody else wants to call this section)". Which you let stand for awhile before recombining the section under the title "Wikipedia is not so bad?".

I had told you that I thought it was rude to change the words that I had written, and asked you not to, yet you continued to insist on re-titling my comments. Simple politeness might have restrained you, but didn't. At this point I decided you were simply trying to poke a finger in my eye, so I decided to wish you "good bye and good luck" and end this silly farce.

Let me be clear. I think that repeatedly changing the title of that section was very inappropriate. Regardless of your intention, don't you see that any reader of your page would naturally assume that I had titled my comments with whatever title they saw? I did not title my comments ""Is wikipedia really doomed?", although any number of readers might rightfully suppose that I had. I did not title my comments to include "It's worse than bad, it is the deadliest enemy of everything I most believe in", though some readers might think so. Finally, I did not title my comments with the equivocal "Wikipedia is not so bad?". This last is the worst, since it is the more plausible. It misrepresents my opinions and, in a nicely subtle way, by making them seem more tentative than they are. Who knows which readers were misled?.

Yes I was offended by you accusing me of "edit warring", but I was also offended, especially in the face of my asking you not to, by your insistence on misrepresenting my position.

As for continuing our discussions, to what purpose? I'm certainly not interested in simply helping you, as you suggest above, "hone [your] arguments" against Wikipedia. But If you want to discuss how Wikipedia might be improved then I might have some interest in that.

Paul August ☎ 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone who arrived in the middle of the "title war" might have been a little puzzled, but to me everyone's position on the issues was always clear enough. In my naivete I assume that anyone with their head on straight loathes edit wars and finds them one of the least attractive (and least helpful) parts of dealing with Wikipedia. Since neither side here hails from the lunatic fringe, I saw Chris' comments as wry humor, and not at all damaging to any reputation.

Social/political/editorial interactions at Wikipedia are challenging. We're all volunteers. We enjoy what we do and feel satisfied or we leave. And long-term success requires good relations with a diverse and mysterious group of "peers". In my face-to-face contact I find humor irresistible. It breaks tension, it teaches, it bonds. Wikipedia is full of tension, the stresses of dealing with all the backgrounds, attitudes, intentions, personalities, and behaviors. Making fun of these facts of life is not only inevitable, it is essential. (Finding this link on your user page, Paul, I suspect you agree.) And just as inevitably, sometimes the joke will be misconstrued. In fact, the greater the stress, the greater the likelihood a joke either will contain, or will be seen to contain, a barb. Much classic comedy makes the clown the target, not the audience. The clown slips on the banana peel or gets the pie in the face — and the audience laughs! I think Chris was trying to make fun of himself for what he had been doing.

Look at the bigger context. In the middle of a page where Chris is airing his angst over the self-destructive patterns within Wikipedia that are driving him away, you introduce a section title that says it ain't so. I'm sure that expresses your heartfelt opinion. It also represents much of what Chris has found so frustrating. You wanted a title that represented your views; he wanted one that represented his.

What really troubles me is the even larger implication. This was an issue of a title on a user talk page, far removed from encyclopedia content. Both parties are genuine in their wish for a better encyclopedia, reasonably mature, and articulate. Yet look at the number of edits and level of emotions engendered! If we extrapolate to articles, it's hard to be optimistic. Not impossible, but hard. Because we have editors who are driven towards disruption or greed or self-importance, who are immature, and who can clearly express neither factual content nor their own thoughts and feelings. Even if Chris is completely wrong and present policies are perfect, the challenge is immense.

And now for something completely different. I suggest picking up Monty Python's The Meaning of Life and having a little listen to Eric Idle's Galaxy Song (lyrics available here). Somehow, I find the perspective soothing. :-) --KSmrq^T 07:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As I near sixty, I truly love the thought that I am only "reasonably mature" ;-) It fits in nicely with another link from my user page But, just so ya know, I reserve the right to be "from the lunatic fringe" (or at least the lunatic part). So the finger Chris was poking in my eye had a "barb" on it? No wonder I found it so annoying.

Thanks K (may I call you K?) for trying to give this issue a wider perspective. I really don't think I misconstrued anything Chris wrote, but who knows? I agree that technically at least, for example in his use of the word "lame", Chris was also making fun of himself, but the "fun" was mostly pointed in my direction, don't you think? I did see the humor in "The title of this section is disputed", but no humor in his subtly changing my title by adding the question mark, after I asked him not to. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

As for "the bigger context", yes I can now see how my adding that comment and title on Chris's page would have been "frustrating" for Chris, and for that I'm truly sorry. I didn't intend my remarks to be in any way hurtful, I only wanted to register a mild dissenting opinion. Many times after leaving that comment, I've wished I'd hadn't.

With one thing you say at least, I must take exception. You characterized the title dispute as: "You wanted a title that represented your views; he wanted one that represented his". What I wanted was for my title, good, bad or purple, to be unchanged. I expect changes to the words I write in the encyclopedia. I don't expect changes to the words I write on a talk page.

Anyway I accept a certain amount of lameyness in my actions, and much of the implied criticism, (gently delivered) in your remarks. Although you cast me as mature, I rather like to think I've progressed directly from childlike to crotchety. Yes Wikipedia presents a difficult challenge on many levels, but, given the industry of so many committed, and talented folks, I remain confident that those challenges can be met.

"The Galaxy Song" is one of my favorites ;-)

Paul August ☎ 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Paul August/Archive Index, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Jorcoga 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey hey. Thanks alot! Feels good to enter the terrible twos, I've always wanted to be an enfant terrible. Paul August ☎

Happy First Edit Day, Paul August/Archive Index, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Michael 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I have two cakes, one for each year ;-) Paul August ☎ 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's good, then. :) Michael 04:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll eat one now save the other one for later ;-) Paul August ☎ 04:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Paul August/Archive Index, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

(have a third - you can share it with your friends :) ) -Ladybirdintheuk 06:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on your first edit day! Enjoy your many cakes. Mr. Turcotte^talk 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all, going to get fat (er fatter). Paul August ☎ 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interactive Brokers

Why did you revert this article? I removed a bunch of comments which amounted to a little more than an unjustified gripe from what appears to be a dissatisfied customer who seems to be unable to read the fine print on the IB website. If you care to make a contribution to the page, please do so, but let the Talk:Interactive Brokers page be your guide.

Wikipedia would be absolute chaos if every dissatisfied customer of every corporate entity was allowed to air all of their gripes at length. The editor was literally arguing about pocket change to most IB users, arguments that really foreshadow the massive cost savings that IB represents for most of its customers compared to other brokerage firms.

64.110.251.69 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was on "vandalism patrol" reviewing hundreds of IP edits. Your edit, via a quick glance, looked like valdalism, since you deleted a large amount of content with no edit summary. If you want to make it again, I won't revert it again. However I would suggest an appropriate edit summary this time. Paul August ☎ 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Thnkx.

64.110.251.69 03:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First edit day (more!)

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE^*
Wishing Paul August/Archive Index a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!

from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE^*

Wishing Paul August/Archive Index a very Happy First Edit Day!

Have a fantastic day!

From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Have a great day! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish you all the best on the ocasion of your wiki-birthday. Have a nice and creative time. --Bhadani 12:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy first edit day, and more great edits to come! :) - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MD, and thanks also to EvocativeIntrigue, and Bhadani, my day's been very good so far! ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
Wishing Paul August/Archive Index a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!

from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE

Wishing Paul August/Archive Index a very Happy First Edit Day!

Have a fantastic day!

From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Michael 03:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute Value

In the article on Absolute Value you recently removed the notations for real and imaginary part I had placed in the section on complex numbers. In your edit summary, you said they were "undefined." I am confused, as these notations used in the articles on real and imaginary parts. On the other hand, I am pleased that when reverting it, you added the condition that x and y must be real numbers, ensuring that they are in fact the real and imaginary parts of z. Although both definitions are eaqually true, I merely believe that when the dfinition explicitly specifies the real and imaginary parts, it is easier for a reader to follow to the next conclusion that ties it the pythagorean theorem and states that it represents the distance from the origin. -- He Who Is^{[ Talk ]} 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi He (may I call you He?), When I wrote that the notation $\Re z$ and was $\Im z$ was "undefined", I meant that it was undefined in that article. But I don't see how using that notation makes things clearer, especially given the attending diagram. Anyway, if you feel strongly about it, you should probably raise that issue on the article's talk page and see what other editors think. Paul August ☎ 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hi, Paul, thank you for your flattering words of support on the RFARB workshop page. They are much appreciated. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

You're very welcome. What no stones thrown my way for referring to Bishzilla, as a damsel in distress? Paul August ☎ 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Knight Errant! and any more cracks like that and it won't be Bishonen in distress! Giano | talk 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Paul August ☎ 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sir Giano"

Sir Giano rescues the fair Bishonen

[edit] Bishzilla

/Bishzilla will not be drawn, stares unblinkingly at Paul. When he starts to run in circles, squealing with fear, she picks him up, holds him experimentally to her ear, is visibly displeased by the high-pitched little noises. The crowd cover their eyes in horror. Hic caetera desunt. Bishonen | talk 07:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC).

Those damn lacunae, just when it was getting interesting too. Paul August ☎ 21:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop

Thank you for your supportive comments here [20] They are appreciated. That Fred Bauder thinks I can be banned instead of Eternal Equinox has caused me to have a severe sense of humour failure. In retrospect, of course instead of making light of Eternal Equinox, I should have taken her very seriously - which is what she wanted - but frankly she and her edits on our talk pages were (at best) a joke - so one could either laugh or cry, and crying has never been my style. That Fred Bauder thinks Bishonen should be "cautioned" is, in short, disgusting. She seems to spend hours and hours trying to create harmony on the site, and takes her responsibilities as an admin 100 times more seriously then most of the others. I think the Arb-com now needs a huge kick, and to rid itself of insulting and incompetent buffoons. I expect I shall stick around Wikipedia, but at the moment it is at an all time low. Sorry this is a (sort of) spammed message. Thanks once again, it's nice to feel supported. Giano | talk 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome to, and deserving of, my support. The idea of banning you is absurd and ridiculous, while banning you and not EE, is preposterous (we Yanks have a more colorful expression: "ass backwards"). As for what you should have done, myself I think, the best way to deal with EE is to ignore her. And as for Bish, she deserves to be thanked rather than cautioned. Please hang in there, knowing that many of us hang on every single word you write ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Perhaps most shocking/concerning of all is your "sense of humuor failure" — I hope my feeble attempts at humor above, below (and on the worksop page) are not out of place?

Sir Giano, Bishonen and Paul on the battle field

Bishonen giving Fred Bauder her most withering look

So long as it is you in the red tights on the ground it is funny! Come to think of it the one with the dagger standing up looks half-witted - is he a member of some Wikipedia committee? - so I don't want to be him either but it's a nice thought! Giano | talk 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxing Day

Ok, folks, tell me what's wrong with boxes and templates. I've begun [21] writing up my idears. Geogre 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Nice to meet you

It was great meeting you too at the party. Too bad we didn't have a chance to talk at Wikimania again. (I had connection problems with my Nokia at this mother of all Wiki-meetups, & wasn't until I was at the airport in Chicago that I finaly figured out how I could have made it all work. But then, I was more interested in connecting with human-based protocols there, & not network-based ones.) -- llywrch 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was just not enough time to meet and talk to all the people I wanted. Also I couldn't stay away from the main session speakers, all of whom were fantastic, but which meant even less time to talk and discuss with my fellow Wikipedians. Let's keep in touch, and maybe will will have a chance to see each other again at next year's Wikimania. Paul August ☎ 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

Would you be willing to comment, here: [22]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Paul August ☎ 01:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. A lot has already been said on the talk pages and frankly I am not sure what anyone else could add. Things have also quieted down. However, for a short time it looked like two or three recent editors were about to seriously weaken the policy, while claiming to defend it. All I can ask is that you keep it on your watchlist (the policy page). At some point it will be unblocked, and at that time it will be important that experienced knowledgable editors keep an eye on it to protect it against any edits that weaken it. Thanks,Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Paul August ☎ 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilove

I love you man. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . 3} 06:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow an unknown admirer. You sure you don't have me confused with some other bloke? Have we met in a former life? To what do I owe the honor? Are you looking for a long term commitment or just a one night stand? Paul August ☎ 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No I love you man... Can i have some money Jamo 06:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Jamo are you panhandling from me or Dfrg.msc? Paul August ☎ 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return of WAREL

Hi Paul,

have you noticed the activities of User:WATARU? Seems to be up to his old tricks at perfect number and division ring. --Trovatore 03:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up. Paul August ☎ 05:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/u/User_talk%7EPaul_August_Archive_Index_da9a.html"

User talk:Paul August/Archive Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Jul–Dec 2004

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

[edit] "pi"

[edit] Category problem

[edit] Maeander River stubness

[edit] Finished mathematics ?

[edit] Naming convention for television articles

[edit] Diagrams in set theory

[edit] Mathematical Vigilance

[edit] TV Naming conventions.

[edit] Data Management Wiki Committee

[edit] Thank you

[edit] User 12.151.135.2 and Boston Opera edits

[edit] Opera Company of Boston Edits

[edit] Attalus I

[edit] Infinity

[edit] Use of infinity in mathematics

[edit] "bounded" versus "unbounded"

[edit] Calculus and mathematical analysis

[edit] Re: Set theory format changes?

[edit] Red-link recovery

[edit] Economy of Ireland

[edit] LNS

[edit] Re: "Topological space" edit

[edit] GNAA Popeye

[edit] LNS

[edit] Clearing the air

[edit] no original research

[edit] request

[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project

[edit] Village Pump archives format change

[edit] Article Licensing

[edit] fix-up

[edit] Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix

[edit] Blunsdon United

[edit] Jan–Jun 2005

[edit] User:Bastard Administrator

[edit] Featured article star image problem

[edit] Mathematics not an art?

[edit] Battle of Alesia

[edit] Please check]]

[edit] Re PlanetMath

[edit] Edit conflicts and a question

[edit] Erdos

[edit] Conway vs Conway's, SPA, and a note

[edit] Are you sure?

[edit] Template:Unicode

[edit] Homoians and Arians

[edit] New Mathematics Wikiportal

[edit] Block of Adolf Hitler

[edit] Italics/bolding

[edit] en-Dashes

[edit] Z is a cyclic group

[edit] PLEASE VOTE

[edit] Attalus immortal

[edit] Need Help

[edit] User:Larsie

[edit] Arbitration Committee case opening

[edit] Classics link

[edit] NBG set theory

[edit] table for list of participants

[edit] Math project participants list

[edit] Check it out

[edit] User 65.39.159.10

[edit] Merging Graph theory and Graph (mathematics)

[edit] Wikiproject mathematics

[edit] Vacation?

[edit] Revolver

[edit] Simplex algorithm and Downhill simplex method

[edit] Skeleton

[edit] Elagabalus

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haham hanuka

[edit] Queen Elizabeth II

[edit] footnotes..

[edit] Move of "Mathematical beauty" to "Aesthetics in mathematics"

[edit] RfA

[edit] List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy