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
8 Oct–Dec 2006
9 Jan–Mar 2007
10 Apr–Jun 2007
11 Jul–Sep 2007
12 Oct–Dec 2007

[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]

[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 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]

[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/archive1. 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]

[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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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'. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. --C S (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.190.161 (talk • contribs) 20:28, April 3, 2006

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).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo Clark (talk • contribs) 05:05, April 6, 2006

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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by QQ (talk • contribs) 17:52, May 28, 2006

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haisch (talk • contribs) 16:47, June 11, 2006

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)

[edit] I'm leaving Wikipedia for a while in protest

Giano, one of our best editors has finally been driven away from Wikipedia, and I've decided to stop editing for a month to protest the poor treatment he has received, and the editorial climate that has allowed this. You could say I am on strike, à la mode (and no that doesn't mean "with ice cream"):

… I simply can't imagine the amount of disrespect, unilateralism, and pettiness that has been par in the last week or two being tolerated. I have no other way, since I believe in achieving consensus, respecting the minority voices, and never trying to force my will on others, to show my displeasure aside from this. It isn't a storming away. It is a strike. Geogre, [23]

Some things that have bothered me:

Carnildo's most recent RfA and repromotion against consensus.

Tony Sidaway's block of Ghirlandajo for his "defiant response" here.

The RFARB against Ghirlandajo.

Tony Sidaway's block of Giano for being "hysterical".

ALoan expresses my thoughts well:

… marked decrease in tolerance … I am no longer sure I know what consensus is, nor that I can trust the ArbCom and the bureaucrats to do the "right" thing. … it now seems to be a blockable offence to fully and frankly (but civilly) exchange views, or to disagree with certain admins, particularly if that disagreement is expressed in forceful (but civil) terms, and that the rules seem to change when it suits the people making the rules. [24],

I encourage everyone to use my page for a constructive conversation concerning the above, and the current state of affairs on our 'pedia. I'll check back in a month. Regards all. Paul August ☎ 17:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have my support

People who don't even know where the articles come from are deciding that their egos' needs are greater than community, consent, consensus, and common sense, are deciding that their private beliefs are superior to the negotiated rules of the site, and are deciding that they know better than all others. For that, they deserve no articles, no input, no debate, no conversation, and no more than the isolation of their self-congratulations and self-adulation. My own strike was a labor action, and I agree with others with the same impulse. Pretty boxes and category tags and stub parades will never take the place of people willing to put their professional-level work on a volunteer project. And, if we were all replaced tomorrow, the replacements, like scabs, would soon join the desertion unless conditions were to change. Geogre 17:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have good points Paul. Carnildo should not have been promoted the way he was (if at all), and Tony is not one of our best admins. I can't comment anything on Giano, as I am unfamiliar with the case.

If the current trend continues, I would also consider bailing out. So far I am left with the hope that these are just a few irregularities in an otherwise rather well-behaving community (and I think that irregularities have happened in the past too, and the ArbCom/Jimobo have taken pretty good care of the worst ones). (I hope I am right :) Good luck. Hope you come back. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the view that things are messed up around here. Carnildo's RfA was a travesty, and there is nothing I can say about Tony Sidaway's behavior of late that doesn't infringe WP:NPA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. I'm not sure that there's anything that could be said that wouldn't be seen by the subject as a hysterical public attack. Uh-oh, BoG, we might both be blocked now. •Jim62sch• 18:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck! Hope your back from your strike soon. --Salix alba (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with your break. I can't stop you going, but I think I am staying for the time being, in an effort to try to counterbalance the prevailing idiocy. I think Geogre's WP:IAA must be the way forward. Please come back in a month - enough good people have left already. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your decision Paul, and I also am worried by what's being done to some of our very best editors. Like ALoan and all of us, neither I can stop you from going; but I can pray you to return when the month is past, for the project would be a bleaker place without a man like you.--Aldux 21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you'll return soon, Paul. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so this is where the party is; I feel a little out of place in the illustrious company here, but I feel compelled to post here after the singularly unpleasant experience of reading over the administrators' noticeboard and several other pages just now. Talented, committed writers are the heart of this project, especially now as issues of quality, not quantity, become paramount, and without them we cannot move forward. This whole episode is very discouraging, but hopefully something worthwhile can come out of it. Come back Paul, in a month or sooner; the ideal of a great free encyclopedia still deserves all of our efforts, and this project is too valuable to abandon. --Robth^Talk 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in full sympathy with Paul August's action, and yet I know it will pass quite unnoticed by Wikipedia's self-involved "administrators". There needs to be some kind of "sunset law", by which administrators must be "re-certified" at the end of a period: every two years at the most. --Wetman 17:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your break, and I hope we'll see you back around in a few weeks. I can't say that I entirely agree with you - Giano and Ghirlandjo both badly needed to cool it and weren't getting the message, but at the same time, they're both good editors, and I'm fed up with people being needlessly provocative towards generally good people. Rebecca 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 18:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics

You will be missed on Mathematics, where I think you have helped to successfully achieve consensus as we improve the article. Stephen B Streater 18:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I've also sent you an Email.--CSTAR 19:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As have I. (Though the Wikipedia e-mail tends to be slow and unreliable at times...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

[edit] Oct–Dec 2006

[edit] CfD

Paul, check this out: [25]bunix 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm back, and thanks

Hi all, I'm back from my "strike". Thanks for all the kind words above. Looks like I missed a lot of things while I was gone. Giano's reincarnation, Tony and Kelly's various resignations, Geogre's proposed de-sysopping by Fred … I hardly know what to say. Paul August ☎ 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, anyway. Charles Matthews 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Charles. Paul August ☎ 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is good to see you back. I trust you had a good break? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just ducky, thanks. Paul August ☎ 01:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What, you were gone? ;-)

Welcome back. FYI, we just lost Chris Hillman, who finally gave up for good. There's been no sign of Lethe activity in weeks. It appears that Charles Matthews, having failed to win a seat on the board, has discovered renewed enthusiasm for editing. If you like geometry mixed with computer science, you may welcome editor David Eppstein (of Geometry Junkyard fame), who has decided to dip his toes in the Wikipedia water. Emeritus professor Vaughan Pratt has complete his first major Wikipedia contribution, an extended article on Boolean algebras canonically defined.

A pretty little animation of Villarceau circles has won a featured picture slot, as has an animation depicting pi.

I'm disgruntled, as usual, from an excess of boneheaded editors and boneheaded policies, and from a scarcity of interesting questions on the reference desk. Maybe I'll try a Wikibreak myself, when I finish up a couple of projects. --KSmrq^T 11:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice to know I was missed K ;-) Thanks for the updates. Sorry to see that Chris finally left. And I hope Lethe hasn't. Otherwise it sounds like some good things (as usual) are going on. I noticed though you left out that 0.999… is now an FA. Is that contributing to your disgruntlement? Is there anything I can do to make you more gruntled? I won't stoop to asking interesting questions on the reference desk though. — Regards Paul August ☎ 12:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Did it win FA? I took that page off my watch list when many of the sane editors went on holiday or break or disappeared, and events in real life consumed most of my time and emotional energy. With Melchoir making scores of edits a day, and ganging up with Mets501 to threaten me with a block for 3RR if I objected, I decided to “cut and run”, leaving the field to the terrorists. But it saddened me greatly, and I fear it sets a bad precendent that will only embolden the forces of darkness.

An article targeted at a specific objective has turned into a sprawling monstrosity, most of whose references are redundant or useless and most of whose content belongs in a general discussion of number systems, especially the reals. There are now mathematical and other errors (in the intro, no less), chaotic organization, and language and concepts inaccessible to the original audience. I cannot imagine a typical schoolchild or curious adult will benefit. Instead of understanding, they will be left with intimidation.

As for getting gruntled, I'm sure a trip to Santorini would do wonders. It would remind me that Wikipedia has not (yet) gone the way of the Minoan civilization after the Thera eruption, and I'd love to sample the wine, food, and dancing, not to mention the sunsets and other attractions. :-)

Anyway, I suspect the mathematics community remains one of the happier segments of Wikipedia, and perhaps we can still have a little fun and do a little good. --KSmrq^T 11:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to se you're back. No it is not a re-incarnation just the same old me - exactly the same in fact. Not a lot has changed. Tell me do you play bridge or poker, I am mentally dividing people up these days - I suspect, like me, you are a bridge player. Giano 20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Giano, welcome back to you too. Yup I play bridge. I was a fairly serious player in my college days, way back when. By the way, I recently had an Italian volcanic adventure. I went up Vesuvio, Mamma Etna, and Stromboli. So I now see where your fiery Sicilian temperament comes from. Paul August ☎ 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are those two sets necessarily disjoint? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Being a poker player — also in my college days — as well as a mathematician I can say with authority that they are not. Paul August ☎ 21:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One bluffs and one calculates; no my temperament is not fiery at all, it is cool calm and collected at all times. Hope you had an interesting holday Paul, and found time to look at some architecture too while you were there. I haven't been to Pompeii for years, do they still show you the atrophied brothel? I remember a school trip to that when I was about 11, we were fascinated, it was the only thing we all wrote about afterwards in detail! Giano 21:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I saw these lovlies (below) at Paestum, as well as the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii (I think I've seen the brothel before, don't remember it this time). Paul August ☎ 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Temple of Hera

Temple of Apollo

Temple of Athena

Glad to see you returned. I hope our paths cross again. -- llywrch 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Me too. Paul August ☎ 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi, Paul. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

Hi Bish, How are things? Paul August ☎ 13:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symbol in Subset

Thanks for putting the correct symbol for proper superset in Subset. I'm glad that someone knew where to find it; as my note on the Discussion page said, I was making the best correction that I could in the interim... Pawl 17:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleopatra

The info on her alternate deaths was sourced, there was no reason in editing it. The suicide itself is speculation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.131.217 (talk • contribs) 13:53, October 23, 2006

This is the edit I reverted: [26]). It made several novel assertions about Cleopatra's death, without providing any sources, for those assertions (see WP:V). So I reverted it as "unsourced speculation". If you want to discuss this further the best place to do so is at Talk:Cleopatra_VII_of_Egypt. Regards, Paul August ☎ 15:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Today's featured article

Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attalus

Cheers. This gives me the opportunity to congratulate you on that excellent article, which must have taken hours of painstaking work. I knew nothing about the subject in advance (even though I've traipsed round a few Greek ruins in Turkey) and thoroughly enjoyed reading it. qp10qp 15:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. It took much more work than I'd care to admit. I'm very glad you enjoyed it. Paul August ☎ 15:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vashist Narayan Singh

I believe you wanted to !vote delete, right? ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks for catching that and pointing that out to me. Paul August ☎ 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul, can you explain the change from \equiv to = in Analytic signal?

this diff [27]

the two mathematical statements that you changed are true only because of their definition. there is no other reason for equality there other than equivalence. (you can answer here or the article talk page, i'm watching both.) r b-j 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi r b-j, I've copied your question to talk page, and replied there. Paul August ☎ 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandal on my page. Hu 02:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Paul August ☎ 02:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes on Element (mathematics)

Thanks for editing Element. Really. It's a bit below par, and could a bit of content. However, I noted that you replaced $\in$ with ∈. On IE (the browser that I use at school; I use Firefox at home), the latter is displayed as box: it's an unsupported character. So, if you have no objections, I'd like to change it back so that on all browsers, the true symbol is displayed. Is that OK? --Gracenotes ^T § 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Paul August ☎ 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dionysus

All praise for restoring the lost bit of text (with footnote link) about Prosymnus. Andrew Dalby 15:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Aww shucks twern't nothin. Paul August ☎ 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've nominated myself for the Arbitration Committee

After some thought, and talking it over with some folks I respect, I've decided to volunteer for ArbCom. You can read my candidate statement. Paul August ☎ 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but will you be happy there, will you have anything in common with any of them? Giano 15:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to be of some help. Are you worried I'll burn out? Yes I know the job is stressful. But I care about our encyclopedia, and I want to serve in the best way I can. If that means a bit of stress, perhaps it's worth it. As for getting along with other members? Yes I am an odd geeky antisocial eccentric old bird who spends half his life staring at a computer screen, having little in common with most other folks. But I count Mindspillage and Theresa Knott as good friends. I hope to have Geogre with me, maybe Filioct will return. I'll survive. Paul August ☎ 16:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh well then your choice - I may even campaign for you, second thoughts perhaps beter if I don't!!! I suppose I could even nominate myself, now that would put that proverbial cat amongst the pidgeons - I shall think on it, it would at least keep everyone on their toes. :-D Giano 08:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice candy-date statement, except that I think if you are serious about getting yourself elected then the last sentence is a problem. I appreciate the honesty and the gesture of support for others, but it suggests a vote for you is misplaced. Maybe you can find a better wording.

For me, this would transcend public service and tend to martyrdom. Still, the rare happy ending is highly rewarding, and it's nicer to be a referee than a combatant. Best of luck; you have my support. --KSmrq^T 09:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support K. Since I would only risk being burned at the stake, in pixels, rather than in the flesh, I remain reasonably sanguine ;-) I would accept it as a personal test of character to be able to maintain a positive attitude under such circumstances. As for my statement of support for fellow candidates Geogre and UnivitedCompany, you are not the only one who thinks it odd (see Questions). So perhaps the last sentence is a problem. I was not trying to convey any hint of my not being serious about my candidacy. I take the ArbCom and being on the ArbCom very seriously. While I am not exactly salivating at the prospect (for the reasons alluded to above), nevertheless, I care deeply about the encyclopedia, I want to serve, the ArbCom plays an important role, and I believe I can help. At the same time however, I also believe there are two candidates who can perhaps help more. Simply put if I were Jimbo and I had to choose only two, out of the three of us, I would choose them. One of the concerns I had while mulling over whether to nominate myself or not, was that I might somehow displace other potencially better candidates. I don't know if any of this is "better" worded. You are a good writer, I would appreciate any suggestions for a better way to express this. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I work at writing well, though sometimes it makes me think Prometheus got off easy. Here's one possible rewording:

"Several excellent editors have volunteered for ArbCom in this election cycle. I would be especially pleased to see User:Geogre and User:UninvitedCompany serve."

Or, say nothing in your candidate statement but add statements of support to their questions page (or other appropriate place). The last sentence of a candidate statement carries special weight, and we want to know who you are and the benefits to us of supporting you. If you keep (some version of) this material, consider moving it and using something else for the last paragraph. --KSmrq^T 08:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what's weird to me? I tried to make it clear in my own answers, but this isn't a question of either/or. This is about the persons and their outlooks, not about "this is how things must go." Hopefully, we all know that compromise is the thing. I can be adamant about something, but that doesn't mean I'll run over people with a steamroller. Maybe we've had some steam roller drivers before, I don't know. Geogre 16:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom "Tongue in Cheek" Question" for Paul August

Hi Spartaz. I've answered your Tongue in Cheek Question ;-). Thanks for asking. Paul August ☎ 20:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Your response made me smile out loud. :) Spartaz 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

;-) Paul August ☎ 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 65.164.168.38

You recently blocked 65.164.168.38 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (about 15 seconds ahead of me). Should we go back and look at his previous "contributions" to see if they've all been caught? (I don't want to duplicate effort.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are not that many. I'd be happy to look at them. Paul August ☎ 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at all of the IP's edits. I've reverted a couple, all the others were reverted by other editors. Paul August ☎ 20:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason's dubious edits

Hi Paul. Just writing to say that the 'dubious edits' on the Jason article did not seem dubious to this user. Can you please elaborate? Solipsist3 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Soliosist3. Well part of my revert was ok. This is the dubious edit I wanted to revert. Thanks for pointing our my mistake. Paul August ☎ 02:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for being so obliging and helpful, Paul, however I must point out that you spelt my name wrong above. Solipsist3 is not tolerant of typos. Solipsist3 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Further to this case, Solipsist3 has decided after a late night emergency meeting that Paul August's name shall be added to the prestigious and exclusive list of Best Friends that appears on Solipsist3's user page. Solipsist3 hopes that Paul August is appropriately humbled by this honour. Solipsist3 06:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo and this belated reply, I've only just noticed yours above. Indeed I am most honored to be so designated, it is always nice to be befriended. Regards, Paul August ☎ 17:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-link in recursion

Hello, I put that self-link in Recursion because I thought it was funny - nobody objected on the talk page. Several serious encyclopedias have this in the see also-section - why can't we? :) - basically, it was intentional, nobody seemed to mind, can you please put it back? toresbe 23:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Toresbe. Sorry I never saw your comment on the talk page. I'll leave a reply there. Paul August ☎ 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've edited the talk page now. I will pend on your approval, as written. toresbe 00:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC) -- Just a reminder, I've updated the talk page now. Will you please give your thoughts? Regards, toresbe 03:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done so. Paul August ☎ 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filter

Hi Paul,

As you've noticed, I'm on a tear through general topology, which was going well, until I went to revise/merge/update filter (mathematics), when I stumbled on a very simple conceptual issue. Could you look at the talk page, and tell me what I'm doing wrong? linas 16:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Linas. Well I've read your comment but I agree with Zundark, I don't see the problem. Every superset of any element of a filter is also an element of the filter. Paul August ☎ 16:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you say why it is "bad" that: $U= (-0.5, 1.5) \cup (x-\epsilon, x+\epsilon)$ is an element of the filter, for any x and epsilon...? Paul August ☎ 16:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nabokov

"Of course, it would have been unseemly for a monarch to appear in the robes of learning at a university lectern and present to rosy youths Finnigan's Wake [sic] as a monstrous extension of Angus MacDiarmid's "incoherent transactions" and of Southey's Lingo-Grande. . ." (Pale Fire [New York: Random House, 1962], 76).

I assume this is what Filiocht had in mind. I would so love to put this in as a footnote and not even mention it's being fiction (and utter nonsense). . . I do think it conveys Nabokov's opinion pretty well. What do you think? Chick Bowen 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chick. Well the passage that contains the Pale Fire ref is problematic for various reasons (it wasn't added by Filiocht by the way). It is out of place in a paragraph that begins "Joyce's influence is also evident in fields other than literature.", it duplicates the intent of the "in Nobokov's case … " passage just above, and I don't see where Nabokov "listed" it as "one of the 20th century's greatest prose works". So I think we should simply cut that part and merge the rest, with the previous remark above. I'll do that now. As for reflecting Nabokov's opinion of the Wake, I don't see a problem with citing that amusing Pale Fire quote, but I think there are plenty of other sources as well. Paul August ☎ 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, and yes, you're right about the redunancy. There is something in Strong Opinions, I think, but I can't lay my hands on it right now. But it's not nearly as fun as the Pale Fire bit. By the way, I think that James Joyce Ramble image probably should go--I don't think it's really adding anything. Chick Bowen 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree about the Ramble. Paul August ☎ 21:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello from a random user

I believe you would (will) make an excellent member of the arbitration committee. They are very short-staffed, and (I believe) a bit frazzled. I have little experience on Wikipedia in relation to your own, but in my humble opinion the presence of an editor such as your self would be greatly appreciated and sorely needed. Happy Editing! NinaEliza 05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nina, thanks for your kind words. Paul August ☎ 05:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well that's embarrassing

[28] (hangs head, and makes appointment with eye doctor). Chick Bowen 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

;-) Paul August ☎ 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

I entered one case, in which I was involved, you may want to check if this expresses what you feel is a model case. While you're gone, I will also go through your questions page and see if I can find more there. — Sebastian (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (Please reply on this page.)

[edit] Well, when you get back ...

When you get back, you'll find two unanswered questions from me on your ArbCom question and answers page. Please have a look. --Cyde Weys 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyde. I've just now returned from a long trip. I'm exhausted, jet lagged, hungry, need a shower and a drink, have a suitcase full of dirty close, unopened packages, piles of mail, very full email inbox, recorded telephone messages, hungry cats, … well you get the idea. I will answer your questions as soon as time and circumstances allow. Regards, Paul August ☎ 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul! I read your reply. You know, you were my favorite candidate and you were the first for whom I voted since I value your levelheadedness. So when you write "Do I still think he would make an excellent arbiter? Yes." it is not what I expected from you. The obvious question is: Why? Geogre's attitude may not have been "vicious", but it violated WP:NPA - a policy that holds for every user, and should be a non-brainer for arbitrators. I agree with the argument "nobody is perfect", and I would sympathize with shrugging this off if he had apologized. But afaik he did not do so, which makes him seem less willing to learn from his mistakes than the average person. How does this qualify for an arbitrator?

Re. the perceived discrepancy between Cyde's two questions: Cyde addressed this here; I can see how this fits together: Cyde wants to avoid situations like the one we witness here. One way to do so is to ask candidates not to endorse or unnecessarily comment on other candidates. — Sebastian 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Hi Paul, just to let you know that you reserve the right not to answer the questions. I recommend that you refer to this, this and this for some context first. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mailer. Oh dear, perhaps I ought to go away again. I see that there are things needing looking into, I just don't have the gumption at the moment (see my response to Cyde above). Thanks, and my best regards too, Paul August ☎ 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take your time, no rush here. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You got my "vote"

Since I posted these questions en masse, I'm probably going to "vote" en masse as well. I admire your candor. NinaEliza 00:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heracles

Thank you for restoring the "foreign language" links deleted by User:68.190.89.38, who treads the borderline of vandalism. --Wetman 06:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for the thanks, but it is Hectorian, who I believe deserves the credit. Best regards, Paul August ☎ 06:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Elections

Hi there, my name is Neille and I'm a producer at a public radio show called Weekend America. We're doing a piece on the ArbCom elections and would love to chat with you as a front runner if you have a few minutes today or tomorrow. Thanks! I'm at: nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org Neille i 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neille. Sure we can chat, anytime. Paul August ☎ 19:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has contacted User:Giano II as well. Can we have a link to a transcript after it happens, please :) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes that would be nice. Paul August ☎ 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How did it go? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I declined to participate in the show, so I don't know anymore about it. Paul August ☎ 06:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big O notation

I noticed that you deleted the alternate definitions an anon (156.56.70.58) added to the page. These definitions were incorrect so I'm glad you removed them. I thought it was best to have alternate exists-forall definitions for all of the entries, though, so I added some to the article. This is just a heads-up: the definitions I added aren't the same as the anon's. CRGreathouse (t | c) 08:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi CRGreathouse. Yes the anon's definitions were clearly incorrect. Your defs left out |g(x)|, I've fixed them. Regards, Paul August ☎ 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. As for auto-signing, I'm not sure what you mean. "~~~~" produces "CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)" and "~~~" produces "CRGreathouse (t | c)" for me (and presumably something similar for you, without the t|c), but I imagine you already knew that since you signed your post above. If you mean customizing it, you can do that by clicking on "my preferences" at the top mid-right of your screen. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Perhaps you mean the 'unsigned' notice, which is {{unsigned}}.

When I left my comment on your talkpage, I forgot to sign my message. But then It was signed automatically for me. Take a look at your History page. Paul August ☎ 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a bot that is automatically signing for users all across the encyclopedia. Very nifty. As a test, I, Cyde, am leaving this unsigned.

Yes, I like it to, but it doesn't seem to always work :( Paul August ☎ 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why the 'bot didn't pick Cyde's edit up, but here - User:HagermanBot - is an explanation of what it signs or not. Newyorkbrad 18:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm, it looks like the bot hasn't been running for over an hour now. Maybe it malfunctioned, or its owner shut it off? --Cyde Weys 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

HagermanBot does not sign any comments that have links to User or User talk space, and your unsigned comment above had just such a link. NoSeptember 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test of HagermanBot

Test (not signed)

Try again (test)

[edit] Loyalty and ArbCom recusal

The issue of loyalty to friends and the question of whether I would recuse in an ArbCom case in which I had a conflict of interest, has come up on my vote page. Ii seems like a good idea for me to respond here:

I would like to assure everyone that I most certainly would recuse. Yes I have developed some very wonderful Wiki-friendships. (Who knows, perhaps one day with you ;-)) I am loyal to those to the extent that I am willing to go the extra mile, during rush hour traffic, detour, get lost, seek alternate routes", fix a flat, run out of gas, and hitch hike to wherever I'm needed. However none of this extends to my judgments about what is best for Wikipedia. In my view, the encyclopedia always comes first.

Paul August ☎ 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loyalty and ArbCom

I said that because I feel that loyalty is something that is rarely tested and yet plays a critical role in how we act. Your endorsement of Geogre and UninvitedCompany raised quite a few eyebrows, and when closely questioned on it you claimed neither one was particularly controversial. At least a few people decided then and there that while you were an excellent editor and fairminded you might not be totally impartial.

I'd like to expand this, so that you don't get the wrong idea, or think that I disrepect you or your viewpoint. One thing I'm very firm about, no matter how long I'll be at Wikipedia, is that I shouldn't be an admin. The primary reason for that isn't my incivility, or my tendancy to sarcasm and irony, but rather my loyalty and inability to act in an impartial manner. I take it so far as to not touch articles on medical care, Neverwinter Nights, the PRC, or any other topic where I have both personal expertese and a strong opinion. I would never try to mediate between a friend on Wiki and another user, either.

Taking this back to my vote, I feel that your loyalty to your friends is admirable. If you trust Geogre and UninvitedCompany, if you feel they are better qualified and agree with their platforms, then I am glad you are brave enough to say that publically, and that you value your friendship with them over the votes it might have cost you, unlike some people who would have backpedaled on such a thing. However, that type of loyalty does not eagerly lend itself to impartiality. While I appreciate the fact you would recuse yourself in a case where you felt you had a conflict of interest, I'm unable to vote support since I don't know if you would recognize such as a conflict of interest. You seem a very calm, uncontroversial man with calmly held opinions and a desire to help improve Wikipedia, and I don't know how well you would handle things if one of your friends got hounded out of Wikipedia and backstabbed like MONGO is now.

I appreciate your comment and honesty, apologize for the length of this comment, and hope you accept this in the good faith I write it in. Good luck in your election effort.

--Elar agirl^Talk|Count 19:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elaragirl, Thanks for your very thoughtful post and your kind words.

As a human being and a mathematician, I have to admit that you are correct, I am not totally impartial, but I sincerely hope and believe I am impartial enough, to be a good member of ArbCom. Ultimately this is for other people to judge. However, If you mean that folks who have no attachments to people or ideas make the best judges — I take your point — but I'm not sure I can agree.

You might also want to consider the possibility that any mistaken judgments I might have, may have more to do with my ignorance than my partiality (I know out of the frying pan into the fire!).

By the way, for the record, a couple of things. First, I've had virtually no personal contact with UninvitedCompany. And second, the reason I have not, as you say "backpedaled", is out honesty not loyalty.

Anyway I appreciate your response, and I most certainly do accept your good faith. I respect other opinions and will think about what you've said. Thanks again.

Paul August ☎ 21:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ent

I appreciate you fixing the use of rf/ent in infinity but I was sorta hoping to use that as a test bed. It's the only article I've found that has spaces in the template calls *and* more than one note. Glad someone is handling this. Gimmetrow 06:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it is easy enough to create a test page. Paul August ☎ 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

True, and I have done that. But it would be better in the long run to handle the leading spaces in the template. I think I have the solution for that. Gimmetrow 06:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ares

Sorry if you thought I was vandalizing Ares. My intent was to break apart the section into two paragraphs, which I just did. Please do not hesistate to tell me if this edit shouldn't be done. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think that you were vandalizing the page. Rather I supposed you were just trying to remove what you thought (mistakenly} to be an extraneous right parenthesis. Paul August ☎ 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy holidays!

Wishing you a Happy Holidays
from s d 3 1 4 1 5 Happy Holidays!!
19:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy editing!

Thanks! And to you. Paul August ☎ 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics and God

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Mathematics and God, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Mathematics and God. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ioannes Pragensis 10:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

All the best, Paul. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it congratulations or condolences? In any case thank you. Paul August ☎ 03:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. I'm very glad you were chosen for the ArbCom, in what has been perhaps the best election yet. You'll make a great arbitrator. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 11:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and best wishes for taking on this demanding role. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Condolescences, obviously ;-))))) Apart from jokes, I'm really happy you did it, your exactly the type of editors that are needed for the job. Oh, and happy new year! :-))))--Aldux 21:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and hope you enjoy this new role (despite sometime being a thankless job.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you all. Will, I hope I live up to your expectations. KC, I will definitely hope for some of those good wishes to come true. Yes Aldux, condolences indeed, but I will try my best, and Buon anno to you too ;-) Jossi, I don't think "enjoy" is the word I'd use, but as in gifts, it's the thought that counts ;-) To all, thanks for your kind words, I hope I am, and continue to be, deserving of them. Any advice, counsel or criticism will be very welcome. If you think I've made a mistake, I want to know. If think I've done a good job, thanks will be much appreciated. I can use all the help I can get. Thanks again, and Buon anno a tutti :) Paul August ☎ 23:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Paul! Best of luck with ArbCom! =) Nishkid 64 23:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oversight

Hello. Congratulations for your election. You now have oversight access on the English-language Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Oversight before using this feature. Cheers! guillom 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul. In addition, please subscribe to Oversight-l. And congratulations on your new status. Redux 13:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Or should I say, my sympathies. :) I just saw the announcement on your appointment to the ArbCom. Wear the hat well. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a hat?! They haven't seen fit to give me one yet. Are we supposed to buy our own? Thanks Zoe. Paul August ☎ 17:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to make your own out of tin foil. :) User:Zoe|(talk)

Congrats! Guettarda 18:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda.

Congratulations! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Oleg. I hope I can count on you and others for some help from time to time, I will need it.Paul August ☎ 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What kind of help? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

All kinds, opinions, advice, relevant arguments, moral support, an occasional joke, a shoulder to cry on, whatever. Paul August ☎

Jokes, eh? Here you go:

A mathematician wanders home at 3 a.m. His wife explodes, “You’re late! You said you’d be home by 11:45!” The mathematician protests, “I’m right on time. I said I’d be home by a quarter of twelve.”
Upon his death, the Pope finds himself in a long line at the Gates of Heaven. He steps to the front, announces himself, and is told to wait his turn like everyone else. As he waits, grumbling, he sees a mathematics professor walk up and be shown in immediately. When he goes to protest he is told, “Shhh. That’s God! He thinks he’s a mathematics professor.”
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician find themselves in an anecdote, indeed an anecdote quite similar to many that you have no doubt already heard. After some observations and rough calculations the engineer realizes the situation and starts laughing. A few minutes later the physicist understands too and chuckles to himself happily, as he now has enough experimental evidence to publish a paper. This leaves the mathematician somewhat perplexed, as he had observed right away that he was the subject of an anecdote and deduced quite rapidly the presence of humor from similar anecdotes, but considers this anecdote to be too trivial a corollary to be significant, let alone funny.

[edit] Unblocking Issue

Hello my honorable friend, Paul August. I am terribly sorry my venerable friend for posting on your talk page, but other respectable administrators such as User:Mangojuice have suggested for my issue to be brought to a higher authority for speculation. Please see my contributions at User:Darin Fidika and my banning issue at User talk:Darin Fidika for further analyzation. I beg of you to look into this case and see it's injustice.

Currently at the moment, I have been permenantly blocked by User:Nihonjoe for "continuous blatant copyrighting of images and information". Due to the fact that absolutely none of my articles that I have created within the recent past are copyright violated to any extent - it couldn't always hurt to add a source though, I am being permenantly banned simply for forgetting the copyright property of a few images that I have uploaded. If I ask for any clarification of this issue, Nihonjoe will simply bring back an old topic from a samurai incident.

Within this incident, Nihonjoe deleted well over 800 of my samurai articles truly because most of them were based off of a single source. I, along with other admins had previously said we would assist in the expansion of these articles from other sources to diminish the copyright violation, but Nihonjoe decided to delete practically everything, including over 200 various other samurai articles that I created from multiple sources such as the Life and Writings of Musashi and the Samurai Sourcebook. After this issue, Nihonjoe falsely accused me of copyrighting information when I truly wished to assist the Wikipedia foundation to the very best of my knowledge. Thus, at this point, I am being thought of as some type of vandal that continuously "steals" information and images when there is no true justification. Every administrator that has responded to my unblock requests on my talk page simply always base their conclusion upon the samurai incident while not looking into the issue at all - thus they reject my good will as nonsense. The samurai incident ended without me being blocked and for no true punishment put on me due to Nihonjoe's unjustified resolution - I probably deserved to be temporarily blocked due to my ignorance however. Whatever the case please do not harm Nihonjoe, since he was obviously uninformed of the entire situation and only acted impulsively. I believe ones incompetence should always be improved upon rather then punished for, as when it comes to Nihonjoe's case.

Thus, I ask if you could unblock me so that I can continue to extend my eternal devotion to the Wikipedia foundation. I intend on expanding various famed novels such as Journey to the West, animes, books, and much more. I only truly wish for Wikipedia to be a place of greatness, and I will gladly extend my loyalty to this foundation at your will's descision as I have done in the past.

Thank you very much my friend for your time and consideration.

-- User:Darin Fidika (30 DEC) (EST)

[edit] Jan–Mar 2007

[edit] A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Need your Oversight privileges please

Could you please check the oversight log and see if any edits have been hidden from the page history of the article Lebanon. There have been a few recent changes to the text that I can't locate in the page history. Could you check for any possible abuse? Thanks a lot. —LestatdeLioncour t 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malebranche

Yes I have reasons to doubt that. I am preparing an University exam about Dante's Inferno and making quite deep studies on that. On the books I have (La Divina Commedia by Bosco-Reggio, Le Monnier 1988, and Inferno di Dante by Vittorio Sermonti, Rizzoli 2001 and these two books list an extensive bibliography each) that is not mentioned. Moreover it says that some critics tried to combine names of Black hguelphs families to the names of the devils. The only correspondence was Rubicante to Cante Gabrielli da Gubbio, the podestà of Florence who signed the exhile act for Dante. I can go on and on... I just wrote a pege on italian wikipedia it:I Malebranche where all those names where analized, they are quite funny. Some times they are similar to some family names (Malebrance, Raffacani, Rubaconte) but these are florentine families, not just from Lucca, and this can apply only to some devils, other are taken fro popular devil-characters (Alichino from French Hallequin, Farfarello from a kind on follet), others are invented by Dante. If you wish you can copy this in the discussion page of the list. Sometimes also books gets wrong, but comparing as many as possible we can try to get a more valid idea. Thank you--Sailko 12:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you change back? I would really cancel the reference to Lucca in that paragraph. --Sailko 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I agree with you about removing the reference to Lucca there. I've made another edit to that entry to clarify the entry a bit more. Thanks for taking an interest in this unfinished list. It is more or less complete through Inf., XXIX, perhaps you might like to work with me on finishing it? Paul August ☎ 19:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to study only Inferno, I am checking item to item, I found very complete so far. I will try to add something --Sailko 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MFD for WP:PAIN

Was this because you changed your mind, or because you realized that the discussion had closed? If the latter, you might be interested to know that it's open again. Grandad 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The latter. Thanks for the heads up. Paul August ☎ 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Just wondering

Of course. :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano

I notice Fred bauder pulled the plug on the Motions in prior cases relating to Giano [29]. What's the current situation - is the intention to bring a RFAR against him, bring a RFAR regarding IRC, quietly drop it all and hope it goes away or is there deadlock behind closed doors? I'm very concerned about all this. The discussions I've seen from the logs are quite reprehensible and the justifications implausible, is Giano to suffer another RFAR for some righteous indignation whilst others can act with impunity because of a technicality that their actions were conducted "off-wiki". I don't imagine you can give any kind of detailed response but it would be nice to know what's going on rather than Fred just deleting the motion without comment. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was fairly clear that there wasn't enough support for those motions to pass, that is why I suspect that Fred removed them. There has been much discussion on all the issues you mention, but we haven't reached any conclusions yet. Frankly I've been quite disturbed by what I've seen in those logs. I will pass along your concerns. Paul August ☎ 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost interview

Hello, and congratulations on being named to the Arbitration Committee. The Wikipedia Signpost is doing a post-election interview with the arbitrators elected this year. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability. We request that responses be submitted any time between now and Monday, 17:00 UTC, to guarantee that your responses will be published. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?

Test
After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?

Test
How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?

[edit] Pi

Can I ask why this was reverted? [30] I am trying to muddle through the edit history now that Pi has been semi protected. The reference to pi is sourced on the wikipage the editor gave. Hazelorb 03:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't look closely enough at that edit, I thought it was vandalism. Paul August ☎ 05:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I figured, when I looked at the edit history (you were reverting the one before that). :) Hazelorb 05:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Did you get my email? --Cyde Weys 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for your input. Paul August ☎ 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input required

Hi Paul,

In spite of my best attempts to continue a normal life on wiki, thanks to Mr Sidaway, the whole debate has restarted here [31], Bishonen has just made a very profound and to the point edit, which I think you should read, I of course have made several :-). However, I am wondering how much longer the arbcom intends for this deplorable mess to continue, before it chooses to act. Of course I could ignore, but on-wiki silence is taken as agreement, and I don't agree, so I will continue to challenge this situation until it is resolved. Giano 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Giano. I've just read Bishonen's comment. I find it reasonable and to the point. Thanks for pointing it out. (putting on my somewhat battered ArbCom hat) The ArbCom most definitly does not want "this deplorable mess to continue". (hat falls off) But It is not clear to me whether the ArbCom has, or should have, any jurisdiction over the Wikipedia IRC channels, and I don't know when or if the ArbCom will act in any further way on this. But it does seem clear to me that as long as these IRC channells continue to bear Wikipedia's name, then Wikipedia should have Jurisdiction over them. This may be a matter though that the community will have to deal with itself. As for silence being interpreted as agreement, I think everyone knows where you stand. Paul August ☎ 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::::*"The ArbCom most definitely does not want "this deplorable mess to continue" is all very well for them to say, but what are they doing about it? That's what I want to know, and probably all the other contributing editors on this site. I cannot imagine what is so difficult to decide, all these people who left the arbcom years ago, or who were only on it for five minutes - get rid of them! Discount them! Dismiss them! - Make a decision, this cannot be allowed to continue. Giano 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests_for_arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945

Hi Paul, sombody has made me aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on canvassing. I thought my original message was reasonably neutral, however I do apologise. As a relative newby, I ought to take some time and read all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Martintg 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC

I added my statement, and would like to encourage you to contribute as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I will write something up. Paul August ☎ 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit

You are, of course, correct. --Ideogram 06:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, umm correct about what? Paul August ☎ 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This. --Ideogram 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you agree. Paul August ☎ 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask you a favor? Can you suggest to Giano that edits such as this are not a good idea? --Ideogram 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish now I had never asked you what edit you were referring to. Without your answer above, I doubt Giano or anyone else would have noticed (which was the point of my original edit). Giano knows that I don't think fighting fire with fire is appropriate — which is what he was doing, responding with a "tit", for your "tat", to which i see you have now responded with another "tat". I wish you both would just stop! Paul August ☎ 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't have seen it, if he had not been so anxious to draw attention to it! it seemed a shame to deprive him. Giano 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well in fairness to Ideogram I did ask. In perhaps a futile attempt to stop this, I have deleted both of your recent messages to each other, since I don't think either was constructive. I hope neither of you mind. Paul August ☎ 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Paul. I think we're ok for now. --Ideogram 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, Giano - It is really quite distressing to see you both trying to out-bait the other. Please both just try to leave each other alone and write some articles (yes, Giano, I have seen the Châteaux Grimaldi - very nice). If you are at a loss for articles to write, the history of ice cream cones is sadly neglected: Agnes Marshall, Carlo Gatti, Italo Marchiony, Ernst Hamwi all need articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ALoan, I take issue with your characterization of my activities as "baiting". I included a little dig at Giano, Paul August quite rightly removed it, and, when I expressed appreciation for his edit the original edit was revealed. Frankly, I am amazed at how many people put the blame on me when someone else is unable to control their temper. --Ideogram 05:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no meaningful difference between "a little dig" and "baiting". Ideogram please just stop. Paul August ☎ 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of being blamed for other people being unable to control their temper. While I admit to needling people occasionally, it is not my responsibility to control someone else's temper. If you want to play this game all I have to do is lose my temper over every little thing and I can blame everyone else for "baiting" me. This pretty much sums up Giano, Irpen, Bishonen, and Geogre's behavior and it is why there is so much conflict between us. --Ideogram 06:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's hilarious. Any person posts once to urge you to stay on topic, and there are three, increasingly hysterical and unreasoned, edits from Ideogram in a row, with escalating anger and a feeling that he's finally getting it out of his system. Golly, but that's not what we're here for -- the catharsis of social friction. And then vows, here, there, everywhere, that he will bring the "fight" to people. I don't agree with fighting fire with fire (or, much more to the point fighting a stone with a rapier). Paul removes a personal attack, and Ideogram takes it as an opportunity to make three more. Giano replies, and Ideogram goes on to make three more. Holy cow, but this is inappropriate.
At this point, I saw an effort to communicate, a nearly inescapable one. When a person is invulnerable to reason, you might reach for wit. When wit bounces off, you might reach for plain talk insult. When that fails, you go to ignoring the person. That's where I've been, but that doesn't work, either, because my name keeps getting mentioned as a person he needs to drive away, to teach a lesson to, etc. There is one thing left to do, but I don't believe in it.
The most important thing is that some arguments are, "You are wrong." Those can be answered. Some are "I am upset," and those cannot be entered into. I think Ideogram's arguments are that he's unhappy. That's too bad, but it's not our business. Geogre 15:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not unhappy, and I have not lost my temper, although you apparently have. I have noticed you try to "spin" reality with a dedication worthy of Pravda. When will you learn that you can't make something true just by saying so? --Ideogram 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linear equation

I left a note on the article talk page (Talk:Linear equation) explaining my reasoning; I'd like to know why "recent changes that [you] don't think are helpful" are so and why a complete revert was necessary.—Kbolino 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. Paul August ☎ 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Durova/Community enforced mediation

I've based a proposal on the mediation from the Piotrus-Ghirla case. Your input would be welcome. Please reply on the proposal talk page. Durova^Charge! 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Durova. I think this is very much worth a try. I have responded at that talk page. Paul August ☎ 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hilbert's problems

This seems a little unnecessary to me, given we have Category:Hilbert's problems. Given your area of expertise, do you have a view? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I will take this up on the Mathematics project's talk page. Paul August ☎ 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Great - thanks. Navigational boxes are all well and good, but only where they add value, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just wondering?

How you and your colleaugues are getting on with your statements for posting here[32]? Giano 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mine is going slowly. Can't speak for the others. Paul August ☎ 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

You have mail. --Ideogram 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've repled. (er replied) Paul August ☎ 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-pled? Did you plead a first time? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I plead and plead, like a voice in the wilderness sometimes. Paul August ☎ 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If Paul August is lost in the wilderness, does he make a sound? --Ideogram 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You have mail again. --Ideogram 17:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal messages to be deleted

Hello Paul, I think I answered your (justified) remark about Absolute value#Absolute value for rings. I know I answer to a question by an anther question, but my aim was to clean up Valuation. Maybe you have time in the next four days to say a word in the discussion. 85.3.195.217 12:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

Thanks for the clarification. WLU 13:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 13:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Thoughts and an ArbCom question

I read with great concern about a high-ranking user's conduct - namely essjay's lying to the New Yorker about who he was whilst representing Wikipedia - and his apparent attitude to the..erm 'flexibility' of the truth - reminds me a little of Lord Archer in the UK. Anyway - I wonder if the Arb Com would have jurisdiction over essjay's various high-ranking positions here at wikipedia if a case were to be brought? - If you (plural) found his conduct unethical, would you be empowered to do anything about it? - I came to you because you seem to be impartial, and i respect your thoughts.... thank you, Purples 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Read what where? Paul August ☎ 05:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul - i stumbled across this at wikipediareview.com - but [33] this is the New Yorker story - and on [[34]] this page he claimed to be a tenured professor, and hold the following degrees;

Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD)

He now admits to having made all that up, and I don't think that's right - not to mention that it could really harm the credibility of wikipedia in various communities. I'm not sure why I came to you other than the fact that you seem a very decent chap. Many thanks, Purples 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does he admit that this is all not true? Paul August ☎ 07:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Paul, should have included that one also - [35] - i think he seems very cavalier about something that I think many would consider so serious. Purples 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that he would lie about such things, and such behavour reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Things like this inevitably entail a certain loss of trust, credibility and respect. Paul August ☎ 07:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm also really unsettled by this user basically running checkuser - and most seriously having use of oversight powers, which surely can only ever work if users are beyond reproach. It seems to me that a small section of the wiki community has trusted essjay, and elevated his authority over the community as a whole enormously, who remain largely unaware of such serious transgressions. What should happen now? Thanks for listening. Purples 07:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re. revoking arbcom remedy

Hi Paul, on 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have raised some questions regarding this remedy (see below), and Fred Bauder has now initiated a motion to revoke these remedies. As you are an active member of the arbitration committee I respectfully ask you to consider my case. The questions I raised regarding the decision of the Kosovo arbcom were:

why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Dmcdevit, the administrator on the Kosovo arbitration committee who initiated the remedies against me has chosen to vote against revoking these. I have, in turn, replied to his argumentation here. Sincere regards Osli73 00:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Be careful what you wish for! Newyorkbrad 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please block this user...

User_talk:204.100.129.254 This IP has a long history of vandalism and you have blocked him for a month last month. He came back and has continued to vandalize wikipedia pages. He recently vandalized the Anabolic steroid article just a few minutes ago. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now blocked for six months. Paul August ☎ 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar image question

Hello.

I'm looking into the Barn Star article, and was wondering if you have any sources to support calling the image you uploaded a Barnstar?

Thanks Pjbflynn 04:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. Paul August ☎ 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental? [36]

If so, please fix; if not, please explain. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes it was an accicent. Don't know how that happened, probably an edit confilict. I will fix it if it hasn't already been. Paul August ☎ 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandt wheel war case - remedy

I saw your rewording of remedy #5 re Freakofnurture ... but it still reads prospectively ... how about "have been restored"? Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joke time

From the Russian jokes page:

Two drunks get onto a bus. One of them asks “Will this bus take me to Lenin Street?” The bus driver says, “No, it won't.” After a pause, the other man inquires “What about me?”

I'm assuming the second man is a mathematician. ;-) --KSmrq^T 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I laughed out loud, always a good feeling. And good timing, I needed a laugh just now. Paul August ☎ 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Given your new responsibilities, I'd guess you could use a smile every week. :-D

Remember, the university is much bigger than Wikipedia. Archimedes died at the hands of an ignorant Roman soldier, the Library of Alexandria suffered repeated fires and indignities, and the Maya codices were purposely destroyed by the Spanish. So far the sentient reptiles inhabiting exoplanet OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb seem completely unmoved by any of these tragedies, as they are still coming to grips with the passing of the dinosaurs. <:-O --KSmrq^T 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sentient reptiles living on a planet of 5 Earth masses with a surface temperature of 50 K (-223°C)? Do they have liquid helium, hydrogen or neon for blood? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously these sentient reptiles differ somewhat from the common terrestrial reptile; but then, so did dinosaurs. ;-) --KSmrq^T 11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

TMBSSNMOTW"reptile"OWIWNPA. HAND. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WF, WSCAOCUOA! Paul August ☎ 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

KSmrq, yes, but having a sense of proportion can be dangerous! Paul August ☎ 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have mail

--Ideogram 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Paul, query for you here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slim, I've replied there. Paul August ☎ 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul, a response for you. [37] Your proposal will be misused by every troll who learns about it, so I'd appreciate it if you would reconsider or reword. ArbCom isn't supposed to change policy or long-standing practise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UC's recent statement there. Paul August ☎ 02:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration templates

I like your changes on the /Proposed decision template. I don't know if it's on your to-do list, but the introductory paragraph of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop could probably use some streamlining as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. — Sorry couldn't resist ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can just an 'umble clerk really touch such an important page as that? :) Newyorkbrad 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There's one sure fire way to find out. ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I played with it a bit—comments appreciated. Newyorkbrad 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

An improvement. Paul August ☎ 19:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "moving new request to top"

If you're going to do my job every time I step away from the keyboard, there's no point in having me. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I always try to make people feel as useless as I can ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll reciprocate by casting some votes for you the next time you're away. :) Newyorkbrad 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That'd be great! Paul August ☎ 18:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arb

Hi quick question regarding the votes, do we get to defend our selves at all? or just let it go until we get banned. Artaxiad 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You can comment on the proposed decision at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision. Paul August ☎ 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure if everyone reads them, I think we all should have a final comment on the decision, I do stupid things sometimes I apologize, alot of users are also upset because of this, all once good contributors now half the ethnic community is being banned all of which are positive I don't mind myself that much, this is my first case so I'm clueless so after the majority of votes go for ban do we get banned immediately I mean a finally comment would do, but yet again if I do everyone is going to reply clogging it up other editors and I don't have the nerves to debate anymore, this case is long and stressing, going for non-arb members who will debate with me, regards. Artaxiad 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I read that page, I'm sure others do as well. And it will remain there as part of the case records, for future review. Paul August ☎ 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's good, but I just don't want people to bash me, its pretty annoying and old, I'm sure others will comment on it immediately. Artaxiad 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi I made a statement here if you wanted to fly by [38] thanks for your cooperation. Artaxiad 03:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way regarding Azerbaijani, he's only edit warred in a few articles, not to mention those articles are unrelated to this case, so presenting them here is not fair its like bringing in a user from another article on sports who reverted here to be paroled for edit warring, hes never attacked anyone very positive contributer, he was added by Grandmaster who has been adding unrelated users just because he has edit warred with them so that they can be punished so they wont have the advantage, by the way if I'm bothering you feel free to remove this. Artaxiad 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see this and block as soon as possible, parole violation, [39] Artaxiad 19:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul, many kudos for going through the details of the Armenia-Azerbaijan case. I would like to draw your attention to my talk page, where admin Golbez is concerned about edit warring at Nagorno-Karabakh by HyeProfile (talk · contribs). He seems to have just returned from a long break and so was not included as a party here. I suppose we can deal with him in the usual manner if he is not made a party to the case. Alternatively, could he be a sleeper of a user about to be banned? Thatcher131 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eupator

You have proposed to soften a measure against user:Eupator. But just today he again removed sourced information put by several users on page Yerevan without substantial explanation [40]--Dacy69 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As a content matter, the "source" is a tourist guide produced by an embassy employee who says "As the after-hours work of a non-specialist who has had time to visit only a selection of the sites mentioned, this guide is far from a complete archaeological, historical, cultural and/or practical guidebook to Armenia." Surely if the facts alleged are true then are additional significant sources to be found. Assuming editors are capable of working politely and cooperatively with each other, the replacement of less reliable and/or biased sources with more reliable and/or unbiased sources happens all the time without controversy on hundreds of articles every day. As an arbitration matter, while I can not speak for Paul, it seems that he found the evidence for edit warring persuasive but the evidence for personal attacks lacking; hence the editing restriction rather than a site ban. If mere edit warring were enough for a site ban, you would be on the same bus out of town. Thatcher131 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And, as a p.s., I'm going to say that this kind of complaint is why you (collectively) are being restricted and/or banned. Your only reactions seem to be revert or complain. There is a universe of other options, including third opinion, request for comment, and mediation. If you (collectively) don't figure out how to use these tools, you (collectively) are likely to spend the next 12 months either blocked for breaking your 1RR per week limit, or frustrated and angry, or both. Thatcher131 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, about edit - Eupator removed not only my edit but others. I have showed now on talkpage another neutral source to support my edit. But question is not about content but about behavior. As for learning of DR - I have filed 2 AMA requests, several times proposed mediation and 2 times third party opinion on various pages. I have not violated 1rr rule. I have not reverted anything on page Yerevan - just added information. I follow Arbcom desicion. The ultimate question is not about someone's ban. I don't support much that idea. I left my comments and proposals on that on talkpage of Arbcom desicion[41]--Dacy69 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You reverted because you had added that same exact line, word by word several times in the past. Don't bother distorting the truth. Knowing full well that there is no consensus for such pov wording and that it has been reverted in the past you still added that during ArbCom! That is essentially willful disturbance. You also know full well that as a result, eventually someone will add the same thing to the Baku article. Enough already. All NK articles including the main one say that both populations "left" during the war to their own countries. That's called neutrality! So what is the purpose of adding that to the Yerevan article other than a blatant act of provocation? Are there no Azeri articles that need improving? No missing articles that need to be created? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Provocation is done by such suers like Fadix and Artaxiad. Actually, some Azeri city pages has conflict-related text. So, I can't called it neutrality when one side is full of conflict-related information, and other is clean. Ganja, for example, has separate section about Armenian community. The line which I added is well-known fact and by no means is POV. On talkpage I presented additional evidence. Previously I stepped aside from Yerevan because of understanding with user Aivazovsky to work together on certain issues to reach compromise. That understanding is not in place any more because some users destroyed it. But I see no reason to continue this dispute here. We can resolve this issue thru mediation.--Dacy69 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That kind of line of thinking and reasoning is exactly the cause of the arbitration and the atmosphere of a battle. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To work together with Aivazovsky? To resolve thru mediation? Indeed, for just one day yesterday you made 3 rv's. That was a reason we all are brought to arbitration.--Dacy69 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You were essentially blackmailing him, "if you don't do this I wont do that" sort of way. You see Wikipedia as a battlefield instead of a knowledge repository. Prove me wrong! Stay away from non-Azeri related articles and I'll see that you're not just "Adil Baguirov light". When I say non-Azeri related articles I don't mean topics like Ganja or NK obviously. I was reverting your buddy Baguirov whom you still refuse to criticize. Why don't you point out that he made over a dozen revert with his disruptive rubbish? Anyway, we are on another users talk page if you haven't noticed so reply to me directly.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, from what I see you guard the Armenia related articles from information about Azerbaijani people. It is true about the article about Yerevan. At the same time, there’s no problem with adding info about Armenians to the articles such as Nakhichevan or Ganja. I think it should be ok to provide such info, of course when it is based on reliable sources. Grandmaster 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peano axioms up for A-class rating

Hi Paul. I suppose you have no time to follow what happens at the mathematics WikiProject, but we have set up a process to grant articles that deserve it an A-class rating at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating. Recently, our article on the Peano axioms was nominated. Unfortunately, there are no comments from anybody who really knows logic, so I was hoping that you could have a look at the article, see whether there is anything there that would embarrass us, and leave a comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Peano axioms. Thanks, and also many thanks for the thankless work on the Arbitration Committee. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jitse. Thanks for the thanks. Although I have a dilettante's interest in foundations, I'm afraid I don't know much more about the Peano axioms than the run-of-the-mill general topologist. But I will have a look at that article when I find the time, I could use the diversion ;-) I'm sure Trovatore knows more than I do, did you ask him?

Always nice to hear from you. I have begun to dread the yellow "You have new messages" banner — cast your gaze above, except for KSmrq's "Joke time", little to look forward to — so your's was a pleasant surprise. Regards. Paul August ☎ 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, it's the dreaded yellow banner again. Phew, it's only Jitse. Crap, he's asking for assistance in the Balkan wars and Srebrenica massacre …

Just kidding. I'm of course mightily disappointed that you don't know everything about Peano axioms and will need a good glass of whisky tonight to get over it. Somehow, I forgot to ask Trovatore; I'll do this right now. But you must be very tired when you start writing your's with an apostrophe. I do hope you have an army of shrinks on-site to combat any burn-out symptoms. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Shrikns? What burnedout syptuims? Ummm whixky! Piano axioms? You must mean Tuner's Axiom: You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish. Paul August ☎ 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apr–Jun 2007

[edit] Thanks for the welcome message

Hello Paul, thanks for your message, I've added my name to the list of participants in Wikiproject Mathematics, what do I get in exchange for my soul? Best, Arcfrk 08:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

For selling your soul to the mathematics project? What would you like? How about not having to pay to edit? I can arrange it I'm part of the cabal. Paul August ☎ 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely they have an exemption for recent Fields medal winners? Thanks for the offer, though. Arcfrk 18:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry they have to pay double. Paul August ☎ 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RfAr

It's okay :) Although I'll need to move that message a section above (I've sectionalized my talk page :P)- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: InShaneee, do you want me to go ahead and close it now, even though CM hasn't reviewed? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You can wait for a response to your message on CM's talk page, or go ahead and close it now, either is fine with me. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Vendetta

Hey Paul, I'd like to draw your attention to a certain RfC that user:AdilBaguirov has been reporting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Khoikhoi It seems that Mr. Baguirov, knowing that his fate of a ban has been decided by the ArbCom, is on a personal vendetta against admin/user:Khoikhoi who is a respected, neutral administrator. He is using whatever's left of his wiki-days to settle a few vendettas and to get as many people as possible to be involved in the Arbitration. He has vigorously tried his best to report users such as me, Eupator and more recently user:MarshallBagramyan who is not even in the Arbitration in the his personal hopes and goals. - Fedayee 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atabek

I think that the ArbCom should revisit its decision on Atabek. He doesn't add anything positive to the Armenian-Azeri dispute resolution. Worst of all is his denial of the Armenian Genocide. [42] -- Aivazovsky 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello Paul, thanks for your dedication to the Armenia-Azerbaijan case and your decision to propose/grant some of the users, including me, less-strict remedies. I am glad that your propositions passed...it won't go in vain! Thanks again - Fedayee 02:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demosthenes

Hi!

Since you are a classicist, a person who has edited in the past the article, and a member of WP:GREECE I wanted your input to this: User:Haiduc proposed some changes for Demosthenes. I was reluctant to accept them, but then I let him add a new section, which I just modified a bit. You can see the discussion here, and the recent additions in the article's recent history (Haiduc's addition and my modifications). As the main contributor of this article I cannot be as objective as I would like. Since I am not yet sure about the utility of such additions, and since we speak about a FA and the issue is serious I think that your opinion and your input (among those of other prominent classisists) will be very useful. Please, have a look at the article and the discussion! Thanks in advance!

Cheers!--Yannismarou 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding [43] Arbitration

Hello Paul,

Could we do a check user on Weldingveersamy (talk · contribs)? I think he might be a sockpuppet of Venki123 (talk · contribs). Thanks, Mudaliar 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment to Newyorkbrad

Hi Paul, I think you've got your wires crossed with what Newyorkbrad said. If you reread over the diff, you'll see that Brad wasn't telling Thatcher to get lost, he was saying that he was going to group all his comments together as he didn't want his comments to get lost all over the arbitration page. Think you might have misread it :-) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the art of satire isn't what it used to be. I was just having a bit of fun ;-) but don't tell Brad. Paul August ☎ 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Right!! Let's just say I was a bit shocked when I read it! I guess that'll teach me to butt into other peoples talk pages :) sorry! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, um, me too. ElinorD (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

... I think I get it now ... Daniel Bryant 12:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effort to delete articles

Paul, I noticed that you voted on this article George A. Borgman two years ago. I voted to delete it then because I wasn’t much interested in jazz, however, I do believe now that it is a legitimate article. Something seems to be going on with User:JzG and Calton and for they have made a concerted effort to delete this article among others some being speedily deleted. Maybe you could re-evaluate this article and see whether their complaints have merit. I think just a tag suggesting cleanup or more sources would have been enough. Plank 12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, you made me a very happy bunny! --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disparaging comments

Hi Paul,

During a recent discussion about Scholarpedia on the MathProject Talk page, User:Jheald considered it a good form to make a disparaging or even insulting comment directed against me. I am not sure if that constitutes a personal attack per Wikipedia policy, but I certainly did not appreciate it, and especially where he posted it. I was somewhat upset over it, actually, and left a comment on his page, which he ignored. Can you, please, take a look? Thank you in advance! Arcfrk 10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arcfrk. Sorry about that. I don't know Jheald, but although he could have chosen his words more carefully, I don't think he intended what he wrote to be insulting. I would try to overlook it if I were you. On a more positive note, I'm glad you pointed out that discussion to me, I found it quite interesting. Best regards, Paul August ☎ 13:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears Jheald has reconsidered, and replaced the original language with something gentler. If all our conflicts were so pleasantly resolved, we could disband the arbitration committee. :-). --KSmrq^T 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If only … I am counting the days till my sentence is over. Is it time yet for another joke? Paul August ☎ 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Right! Thank you for your advise. Regards, Arcfrk 23:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbes explains mathematics to Calvin

Yes, time again for a little entertainment. See Calvin and Hobbes 91/06/17. --KSmrq^T 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

;-) Paul August ☎

[edit] Caribbean Coast

Hi,

I found the page: Caribbean Coast, was deleted. Concerning the copyright issue, I would like to rebuild the page with my own information. In fact, the latest version of Caribbean Coast before deletion, had most content from my own. I would be grateful if you could return the source of the deleted page and I will rebuild what i wrote.

I am not sure what Ohconfucius mean about the copyrighted content, at least he/she did not participate in the discussion or to post his/her own edition. At last, Jimfbleak need to prove what is the violation, instead of listen to Mr somebody to delete that page. I would respect Jimfbleak power, but i would disagree Jimfbleak abuse of power without evidence.

Thanks

senatorto

[edit] Categorical nonsense

Hi Paul, As an alleged categorical topologist, I'd like to know your thoughts on some categorical nonsense that I splattered onto my user page, about algorithms and algebra. (titled "homology of computing systems"). linas 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Linas, I read your inspired daydream and I found your ideas interesting, you should pursue them. Other than that, I'm afraid I can't scrape up any more useful thoughts at the moment. Note that the operative word there above is "alleged", which conveniently for truths sake, is also in the past tense. ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. As I'm sure you know the phrase "categorical nonsense" is redundant.

[edit] RFAR/Betacommand

Thanks. I haven't been paying as much attention to that as I probably should have, as original filer, but I'm glad you aren't letting it casually decay for lack of prosecution. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Always nice to know that someone thinks what you do has some value. Paul August ☎ 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I just saw your proposed decision... just reading all that I'm tempted to vote for drawing and quartering, much less arbcom sanctions. I see "every skeleton in every closet" was not an overstatement - remind me never to get you mad. Do you really think he is that bad? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "mad" (I hope) and I don't think he is "bad", at all. Rather I just think he lacks the good judgment and communication skills we should expect of administrators. If your views differ, please share them on the case pages. It isn't over till it's over. Paul August ☎ 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Although, It is not quite as nice to know that, while someone thinks what you do has value it is perhaps not as valuable as they had thought, it is still nice to know. And as for my being thorough, please see "personality traits" under "Personal Info" here.

That was one complex PS, and I'm not sure I parsed it correctly, but in case I did: please don't take my statement as criticism, simply as amazement at your work. When I brought the case, I did think he was an unrepentant repeat problem admin; 3 prominent incidents in 6 days, with many of the same uncommunicative characteristics, seemed pretty conclusive. But then it was quite a while without major explosions, and several people did speak up for him, so I began to think an intermediate measure was warranted. But then that summing up is pretty damning, you present quite a longer sequence of problems then I had known of. I don't know where to write any of that in the case pages, it's not evidence, it's not workshop proposal, it's just stream-of-consciousness ramblings. In the end, I think I'm going to take real joy at not being an arbitrator, and so being able to let you folks do it, and not having to personally make the tough choice between desysopping a well meaning, poorly communicating, administrator, or possibly not doing it and facing another series of incidents. That's why you folks make the big bucks. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were being critical, but I wanted to allow for the possibility, hence my "perhaps", and "if". In turn, I don't want you to think that my remarks were at all huffy, because they weren't. Rather they were meant to, not only allow for criticism, but to actively encourage it. That is, not only do I appreciate knowing when I'm doing something valuable, I also appreciate knowing when I'm not ;-) I am not so sure of myself to think that the latter never happens. Paul August ☎ 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heraclides Ponticus

The problem with putting wikilinks in the references is that it could confuse the reader. Many links in the reference sections of articles are links to websites that contain the referenced information. (See what I have done with Sombrero Galaxy, for example.) After reading several articles in Wikipedia, readers will naturally expect this for all links. The problem with placing links to Wikipedia articles within the references is that it may lead the readers to think that the Wikipedia article used other Wikipedia articles as references. Wikipedia should, of course, avoid referencing itself.

Hence, I removed the wikilinks in the references because they could cause confusion. Does this make sense? (I hope by capital letters were not too loud.) Dr. Submillimeter 06:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

KSmrq pointed out that my corrections go against the recommendations at WP:CITET on using references. Feel free to replace the links. (Just leave the categories alone.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for respondoing to my post on your talk page. KSmrq has already replaced the links in that article. Are there other edits that need to be undone? Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for welcome

Nice to wiki with you again! I'm going to keep a low profile & save my energies for Dean's logic article rewrite. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 10:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zile

Hi, Can you copy edit the article when you have time? Thanks--Ugur Olgun 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh ... why me? Paul August ☎ 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RFAr

Could you fix a signature on wP:RFAr? (You didn't sign; I added a note to your vote, but I think it's best for you to fix it ^-^) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kind note. I have responded on the pending decision talk page as you suggested. I'm somewhat surprised (although I shouldn't be) that anyone would think I was edit warring, but a complete readthrough (as you endured) should show what was happening, that the article was being swarmed by "one-subject" editors for an extended period. Perhaps I could have done things better, but I did approach dispute resolution channels in their established sequence to get more attention from "multiple-subject" editors, instead of treating the articles as some sort of personal fiefdom that only I could defend. Now that attention is forthcoming after two years it is ironically amusing to be labelled (by some) as part of the problem. I can understand it as a pro forma exercise in neutrality, what's good for the goose etc., and am happy to have my actions and edits reviewed, however. One of two things can happen in such a review, I can either learn something about myself if any ensuing criticisms are valid (the motto from my user page: 一字師 "one letter teacher" or "whoever can improve my work by one jot is teaching me") or about the reviewer if they really aren't. I have walked away (in relief) from the FLG project for the most part, but I appreciate the work you are doing, and am willing to help the new process to the best of my ability. --Fire Star 火星 20:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please advise: Special:Contributions/HappyInGeneral

I read your notice [44], and I agree that there is a revert war going on, which I don't like, so please help me clarify a few things by commenting on my contributions.

The Suppression_of_Falun_Gong page:

- I think that this contribution is essential: [45] because it's well sourced and very relevant to the page. Please review and let me know what you think.

Also the tags are necessary because the current version of Suppression_of_Falun_Gong [46] is hijacked by the POV of Special:Contributions/Samuel_Luo a Falun Gong critic who is proposed for being banned [47], also you may observe that the contributions of Special:Contributions/Pirate101 and Special:Contributions/Yueyuen are only imitating Samuel Luo's behavior.

I would really like more input on this issue, so please answer. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether that image is appropriate in that article, or if it is, whether it should be at the very beginning of the article — it is certainly provocative, perhaps even sensationalist. But that is for you and the other editors of that article to decide collectively — and without edit-warring. I noticed that some editors were willing to accept that image but to place it farther down in the article, yet you have opposed this compromise. Paul August ☎ 21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A few questions:

Is the information well sourced?
Is the information relevant?
Do we have consensus on that page?

My opinion regarding these questions, and please let me know if I'm wrong.

+
Basically if the material is well sourced and relevant it should be in that article.
If the article is not on consensus than there should be tags presenting that.

As far as I see it, I'm acting according to the wikipedia rules and spirit, where Samuel is not, he is even removing tags that show that the article is disputed.

But please let me know what you think and how you see this. --HappyInGeneral 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that there was a legitimate section for this on this page [48] however this was deleted: [49]. Abusively and repeatedly [50].

Also please review this section of the evidence page: [51] --HappyInGeneral 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would just add my quick note here. I only say this informally as a matter of personal concern. I don't think that photo belongs in the introduction, and that it would be somewhat unencyclopedic to put it there. It would be leading the readers opinion, obviously. I think part of the reason it was advocated for so strongly by HappyInGeneral was because of the prior blanking of information about the persecution on that page, which actually resulted in the ArbCom case, and the general editing behaviour that has developed around these pages. For example, all templates which indicated that the page was subject to review and that it had problems conforming to wikipedia policies were blanked continually, and tags on the Falun Gong main page which drew attention to problems with some material were continually blanked.

Aside from this, and agreeing that these images should not be used in a wrong way, I feel there is a deep misunderstanding in describing the image as sensationalist. That is a real person who suffered 8 hours of extreme tortured, having her face shocked with electric batons, basically for her beliefs and for doing some exercises, and that is not even the worst of this persecution. It would be like saying "you are not allowed to sing in the street", then the police beating and torturing those people that continued to sing, and would not stop. I don't know if you have thought about it, Paul. I disagree with HappyInGeneral's editing behaviour, and it would appear that so does ArbCom, but I can see it as a result of desperation more than anything else. Wikipedia should just report what third party sources say without any bias, conforming to wikipolicies, so what I am saying now is not really related to these pages.

I was going to say something further, Paul, but I will just recommend you go to this page and read the report: www.organharvestinvestigation.net. I also want to say that there are enough respected third-party sources, not Falun Gong, which document large-scale systematic torture, like beatings with sticks, using fire, electricity, mangling womens' vaginas, people getting tied up in constrained positions for days, injected with drugs so they go blind or go crazy and lose the ability to talk, lose memory, get put in wheelchairs, whatever, any and all cruel things you can think of, all this is documented by sources that are not Falun Gong. Basically I am just writing the note out of concern that you are not fully aware of, or have not had the opportunity to read information about this. There is a psychiatrist Robin Munro who has written a bunch about psychiatric abuses, and the UN Special Rappeuteur for torture, Amnesty International, as well as other NGOS, all have a lot to say about the matter. Maybe you already heard about the organ harvesting report. I really hope you read it.--Asdfg12345 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Re-reading what I wrote above I realize that I didn't express myself very well. The image itself is not "provacative" or "sensationalist" but its use in that article may be. Paul August ☎ 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In which article do you think that it should be appropriate then? --HappyInGeneral 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, that is for the editors of each article to decide through consensus — and in particular, without edit warring. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I just got a reference to WP:DR from another administrator, so I'll go through that first. PS: it would have been nice to get this a month ago and before the 30+ reverts. Anyway thanks a lot for your input. --HappyInGeneral 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

for this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Communication. Creating some semblance of balance, including both rights and responsibilities... well this patches a bit of a gap (beyond any immediate case). Jd2718 12:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. And I appreciate your thanks very much. Paul August ☎ 14:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McConn on revert parol for a year?

I've just noticed that this is the conclusion you've come to, and I'm quite surprised. I doubt that there is anything that I can do about your decision, but I still feel the need to defend myself. It's true that I've engaged in edit warring, but rarely have I ever reverted without discussion (in fact using the talk pages to explain each of my edits is something I make a priority of), and rarely have I ever participated in a revert war that wasn't over edits that were quite clearly inappropriate. I believe that I've also been regarded by most other users as very reasonable, including by those that are on the opposing side, such as Firestar and Tomananda. It's rare that people rationally complain about my editing behavior. I also make a point of using the talk pages to discuss content without pushing my opinion about Falun Gong. And because of these things, I haven't felt any warning or threat that some action might be taken against me. I appologize for the fact that I haven't been following the arbitration case or participating in it. This is mostly because I was away from wikipedia for about two months, and only really came back after the pages were opened up to make some edits that I thought were rather straightforward. (I understand now that this was probably wrong and that I should have waited for the arbcom case to finish before making such content changes). Anyway, were I to know or have been warned that my editing behavior has been a problem I would change immediately; you don't need to put me on any kind of restricting parol to do that. I respect your position and understand that you've done your homework, but from my perspective this kind of decision without any warning seems like jumping the gun. Thanks for listening. Mcconn 16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification

Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clock

I apologize for not giving a fuller explanation for my reversion of Freedom skies' sock edits on clock earlier. Freedom skies (editing as Moerou toukon) cited Subhash Kak. Subhash Kak's views on the history of science are not supported—to say the least—by "the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" and his reputation reflects that. Instead, what he is known for is claiming that any number of scientific discoveries were made in Indian antiquity. See this diff for an example. The column space and primacy that Freedom skies and his socks (or for that matter accomplices like Hkelkar and Bakasuprman) devote to such views gives them undue weight. JFD 05:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir,

JFD brings a diff, this diff.

I respond to JFD's assertions by bringing this :-

When the men of Alexander the great came to Taxila in India in the fourth century BC they found a university there the like of which had not been seen in Greece, a university which taught the three Vedas and the eighteen accomplishments and was still existing when the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien went there about AD 400. -- Within the Four Seas: The Dialogue of East and West By Joseph Needham. Published 2004. Routledge. ISBN 0415361664

The ancient university city of Taxila, on the Indian side of the Indus, lay within the reach of Peshawar. -- History of Indian and Indonesian Art 1927 By Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy. Published 2003. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0766158012

Arab travellers and their teachers came in large numbers to the northern university of Takshashila or Taxila, which was especially famous for medicine. -- Indo-West Asian Relations: The Nehru Era By Najma Heptulla. Published 1991. Allied Publishers

Early biblical references provide accounts of travelling scholars, and interlectual education can be traced to the 272-22 BC reign of Ashoka the great and the establishment of the University of Taxila in Asia minor. -- The Psychology of Culture Shock By Colleen A. Ward, Stephen Bochner, Adrian Furnham. Published 2001. Routledge. ISBN 0415162343

In the early centuries the centre of Buddhist scholarship was the University of Taxila (near the present city of Islamabad) -- A History of India By Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund. Published 2004. Routledge. ISBN 0415329191

[the Buddhist university of] Taxila, beyond the Gupta boundaries, [was] in the fifth century devastated by the Huns -- Scholarship and the Gypsy Struggle: commitment in Romani studies. Donald Kenrick. Published 2000. University of Hertfordshire Press. ISBN 1902806018

Foreign minister Zulfifar Ali Bhutto arranged for the secretary general to take time out to visit Taxila, seat of the oldest Buddhist university in the world. -- United Nations: the first fifty years By Stanley Meisler. Published 1995. Atlantic Monthly Press. ISBN 0871136562

Taxila university , which is the oldest in the world, has been in existence even before the time of the Buddha and before the occupation of the Taxila valley by the Achaemanid rulers in 6th- 5th century B.C. Probably in the period of the (7th century B.C.) philosophers gathered here to have their own schools of thought and imparted instructions. -- Official Portal of the Government of Pakistan (Pakistani Heritage)

The history of international educational exchange can be traced to the University of Taxila (Taxshashila) in ancient India. -- Indian Education Abstracts By India Ministry of Education, India Central Secretariat Library

The Buddhist influences in northern Pakistan are evident in elaborate buildings at Julian, the Buddhist hill town outside the ruins of Taxila, where a bustling university existed in ancient times to train monks -- Culture And Customs of Pakistan By Iftikhar Haider Malik. Published 2005. Greenwood Press. ISBN 031333126X

Sir,

JFD never appeared on Clock before.

He appeared there right after I did.

This happens a lot.

JFD never edits on articles originally, his interests are my edits; more specifically undoing my edits right after I make them. This has not been happening recently but has been happening in every single field from Buddhism, martial arts, history, countries etc. Whenever I edit anywhwere I find this middle aged man has become obsessed with me right after an hour after my edits and has reverted my edits incessantly.

Recently; I have been afraid to even check his contribs and have had a chill whenever I see the You have a new message sign and even am relieved when I find that it's the Wikipedia Signpost.

This man should not be allowed to wikistalk me; he should not be allowed to get away with the pretence that he magically develops an interest in any topic that I edit on, and has this compelling need to stalk and abuse me on the same topic.

Has he done anything here for the last few days except have dinner and then derive sadistic pleasure by abusing me and following my trail? He does'nt contribute here, Why is he here? To argue with me or to make an encyclopedia for free ? Would that not be done better on a discussion forum somewhere?

What would JFD have done if I had'nt entered this encyclopedia? Make a shrine for me and await my coming so that he can fullfill his destiny of reverting my edits? Why does he not edit on the topics that interest him? Why become obsessed with what I edit and what I do?

I find a middle aged man building templates for me and following me sickening. I have asked him to stop but he simply won't listen. Even his RfA case was'nt based on an event like the recent cases are built upon but was based upon freedom skies disagreed with a few editors and I would like to have him banned so I can undo his edits and drag his name thorugh mud Only a few editors had anything adverse to say about me; some had to be reminded by JFD on who I was. He tracked my contribs for so long that he recorded the names and incidents of every little disagreement that I had and used it to his advantage.

Sir,

I request that JFD be sentenced to stay away from the topics that I have contributed in on grounds of sadistic wikistalking, online bullying, abuse of editorial privilages, libel and defamation, racist commentary and operation with an intention to clash with me and not with an intention to contribute to this encyclopedia.

JFD has yet to reply to the arbcom request for clarification and can't even put a <reference> code with / in this version while he puts footnotes.

_{Freedom skies| talk} 06:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Now JFD blanked all content from this Draft of article published in the Encyclopedia of World Environmental History, Berkshire/Routledge, 2003. Alan Macfarlane which I bought to cite on Tea. He'll follow me and will delete every one of my edits with zeal and intent unless a decree is passed prohibiting him to engage in such acts.
_{Freedom skies| talk} 06:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

he should not be allowed to get away with the pretence that he magically develops an interest in any topic that I edit on, and has this compelling need to stalk and abuse me on the same topic...This has not been happening recently but has been happening in every single field from Buddhism, martial arts, history, countries etc...

I edited Zen/Chan, Bodhidharma, Shaolin Monastery, Shaolin Kung Fu and Kalarippayattu as early as July 2005; Freedom skies didn't edit these articles until October/November 2006,[52][53][54][55][56][57] starting edit wars in Zen/Chan and Bodhidharma.

As early as May 2006, I edited Vajramushti, which Freedom skies didn't edit until August of that year.

I first edited Tea in June 2006; Freedom skies first edits Tea in March 2007 (as sockpuppet Phillip Rosenthal). By the way, look at how much of a nationalist I'm not being in my edit and how Freedom skies (as sockpuppet Phillip Rosenthal) is deleting sourced content in his.

In July 2006 I edited Gunpowder, which Freedom skies doesn't edit until April 2007 (as sockpuppet Moerou toukon).

I first edit Batuo, Origins of Kalarippayattu, and Huike in August 2006; Freedom skies didn't edit these articles until October 2006, November 2006, and February 2007 (as sockpuppet Phillip Rosenthal), respectively.

It sounds more like Freedom skies is wikistalking me.

I have been afraid to even check his contribs

Definitely sounds like he's wikistalking me.
Speaking of which, why in the heck has he followed me to your talk page? I only came here to give you the explanation you asked for.

I request that JFD be sentenced to stay away from the topics that I have contributed in

If Freedom skies is held to his own standard, does it mean that he'd be banned from articles to which I've contributed first?

What would JFD have done if I had'nt entered this encyclopedia?...He does'nt contribute here, Why is he here? To argue with me or to make an encyclopedia for free ?

Adding sources,[58] reverting vandalism[59][60][61][62][63]...same old, same old.

JFD has yet to reply to the arbcom request for clarification

If I need to reply to something from the Arbitration Committee, I'm unaware of it. Please let me know if I do.

JFD can't even put a <reference> code with / in this version while he puts footnotes.

Slipped my mind. I'll fix that right away.

Paul, I'm sorry that this has taken up so much of your Talk page. I've tried to be as brief as I can.
JFD 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited Zen/Chan, Bodhidharma, Shaolin Monastery, Shaolin Kung Fu and Kalarippayattu as early as July 2005; Freedom skies didn't edit these articles until October/November 2006, starting edit wars in Zen/Chan and Bodhidharma.

I entered wiki on 08:18, 6 November 2005. The question of JFD's pattern of incessant wikistalking is deliberately being meshed with his edits before my entry.

My edits to Bodhidharma led to the present version; as compared to the PRC propoganda piece that JFD tried to push.

As early as May 2006, I edited Vajramushti, which Freedom skies didn't edit until August of that year.

He edited on Vajramushti?

I did'nt even know that and can you blame me?

His work consisted resulted in this, unsourced stub class article.

In fact, third paries contributed to that article in significant ways; neither I not JFD.

He's using it to say that I wikistalked him ?

I never knew that JFD edited here as well, neither have I undone his work.

I first edit Batuo, Origins of Kalarippayattu, and Huike in August 2006; Freedom skies didn't edit these articles until October 2006, November 2006, and February 2007 (as sockpuppet Phillip Rosenthal), respectively.

He has been editing a large set of articles that had recently been edited by me. It happens everytime. By JFD's own admission I appeared months after JFD edited on Zen/Chan, Bodhidharma, Shaolin Monastery, Shaolin Kung Fu, Kalarippayattu, Vajra Mushti, Tea, Gunpowder, Batuo, Huike, and Origins of Kalrippayattu.

JFD has been worse since 21:00, 15 March 2007. Since then he has done almost nothing else but become obssessed with putting me away and undoing my edits.

Now he'll simply follow my contribs to blank everything with disregard. He'll be editing a large set of articles that had recently been edited by me and will simply blank everything.

_{Freedom skies| talk} 18:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HenryG case

Hi... I saw this: [64] .. seemed a reasonable action by a clerk, the case was "fast tracked". Then I saw this: [65] which totally confused me. Why did you revert NYBrad's action? Seems rather process wonky not to let the case get opened expeditiously. Are you someone that feels process is more important than doing the right thing efficiently? This case has overwhelming votes to open, many arbitrators seem to want it done right away, and NYBrad is a very good clerk. Wasn't it a bit of a slap to him to revert him that way? Aren't you going against consensus of the rest of the arbitration team by standing on process? (...you can answer here, I'll watch...) ++Lar: t/c 12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is important to give some minimum time for the "accused" and others to respond to the accusations. We can expedite things as necessary in an emergency. But I see no need to rush things here. Due process is also important. Supposing following process to be an alternative to "doing the right thing efficiently" is a bit simplistic. Appropriate process is part of how we determine what the "right thing" is. Society needs to be governed by dispassionate law, not by whatever the local group, first on the scene happens to believe, in the heat of the moment, is the "right thing". I have nothing but the highest regard and respect for Newyorkbrad and he is certainly an excellent clerk. His actions here were perfectly reasonable. I was sorry to have had to "overrule" his opening of the case and told him so. In addition there was discussion on how to handle this case, including some participation by Newyorkbrad and Thatcher131, on the Arbitration Committee's mailing list, and the mailing list was informed of my views and actions with regard to them. Paul August ☎ 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lar, thanks for your concern. It certainly makes the job of the Arbitration Committee Clerks more interesting when we get conflicting instructions from the different arbitrators. But in this instance, no harm done, and I know that things often are much the same for court clerks of multi-judge courts in the real world. Some of my off-wiki original research is in U.S. Supreme Court history, and after reading through the papers of Walter Wyatt, who struggled with being told to do one thing by Justice Frankfurter and another by Justice Douglas and a third by Chief Justice Warren, I don't think I have it so bad. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when this happens the correct clerk response is "Please, sir, may I have another!" Thatcher131 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and you'll never know how it so pleases the Committee, to make your lives as clerks as difficult as possible ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I will have to run for arbitrator myself, just to see what life is like on the other side of the curtain. :) Newyorkbrad 16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A few points. First, I think what was being expedited here by NYB was merely opening the case, not rushing to a decision. I don't really see how "giving the accused time to respond" has any actual bearing in this instance, they'll have plenty of time to respond during the case. Also, hasn't the "accused" basically been blowing everyone off for a month already? Second, while it may be true that "society needs to be governed by dispassionate law", this isn't actually a democracy, nor is it a society... people don't have rights, there is no specific due process to follow, and it's not actually run by the rule of law. What it actually is, is a project to do something, to make something. Arbitration is a means to that end, that of creating an encyclopedia efficiently and harmoniously, not some system of justice that exists for its own sake. That you term your action "overrule" in this matter rather than "go against apparent consensus" strikes me as an issue in its own right... you aren't a judge, just one of us that we selected by consensus to help make things go smoothly. Third, NYB is, in my view, too nice a guy to give you a hard time about making things difficult for him, but that is you did. Once the case was opened, to go ahead and close it again so that it could be around for 24 more hours strikes me as really just a waste of everyone's time for no apparent reason. Fourth, I'm not privy to the arbcom mailing list but I do have to wonder what was said to you privately about this matter. I would be greatly surprised if it was uniformly positive. In summation, it's my view that you messed up, and you could either dig in now and defend in depth, or just admit that in hindsight it perhaps wasn't the very best idea overall to summarily revert a clerk without discussing it privately with him first. You should apologise for that, and move on. It was a relatively minor mess up but a mess up just the same. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There probably was a better way to have handled the situation, there almost always is. And again I apologize for making clerk-life more difficult for Newyorkbrad. Paul August ☎ 04:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tnx

for that:[66] Zeq 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] " The name "Pinocchio" is from Toscany and means : "pine nut" or "kernel". "

You should never have been taught to read because, apparently, it just didn't take.

[67] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.110.202.41 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Can you explain ?

Hi Paul,

I fail to understand where in this did I made any edit which disrupts wikipedia: [68] and why this accusation is not presented in the work shop and evidence pages so it can be commented and responded too.

On the other hand there is ton of edit-war and other evidence against Zero's editing which is not even considered.

Thank You. Zeq 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics CotW

Hey Paul, I dialed a Complex number! What so I do now? I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

Hi, Paul, don't think we've met, but I tend to have an eye on arbitration matters, and I just wanted to say I think you do a great job. I find your comments and insights are typically among the wisest offered. So, keep up the work (it can't be much fun to deal with the worst disputes on Wikipedia, but someone's got to do it!) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Paul August ☎ 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hawaiian English

Someone recently redirected the talk page to follow the article merge. I reversed it, as the talk page was redirecting to the article page, but I think we need a soft redirect, See Also, or merge of the talk page to that of the article the page was merged into. Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think things are just fine the way they are. Paul August ☎ 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible article?

Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:

Flora and fauna of Greenland

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal Arbitration case

I know you're going to be away for a few more days but I wanted to post this so you'll see it when you return. I realized you accepted to work on the paranormal arb case. I wanted to know when you would start working on it. I also wanted to request that when you do, you add [[69]] and [[70]] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area [[71]]. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for. Also please add [[72]] and [[73]]. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration status

Hi and welcome back (I hope soon). Upon your return, you'll notice that the list of arbitration cases is similar to how it looked when you left. You were moved to "away" while you were away, so please let us know whether you'd like to be restored to active status on all pending cases, or only on cases accepted after your return, or whether you'd like to handle it on a case-by-case basis. Hope you had a good trip and break. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brad. Case-by-case seems best. It may take me awhile to get back into the swing of things. It was a good trip, but too short. Paul August ☎ 12:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make a note on our noticeboard to only move you to active on cases where you request it or cast a vote. But please dig in, there's plenty to do. :) Newyorkbrad 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newton and Leibniz

Hello Paul, I understand that you are a mathematician. In light of this fact, I was wondering if you could help me correct all of the wikipedia articles having to do with Newton and Leibniz. Recently some very exiting evidence came out with regards to these two men(a until recently unknown correspondence!). However, I do not want to spoil it for you. Please let me know if you are willing to help me out, thanks --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chronholm, thanks for the offer, but I'm a bit busy these days. Paul August ☎ 17:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Aww... Paul, I was trying to cheer you up, that paper is an April fool's joke. I know you have been down with all the Arbitration recently and Ksmrq suggested that I add a little bit of humour to your wikilife. The paper is rather short and clever, certainly a fun read whether you are in on the joke or not. Cheers and remember that you have friends at WP:WPM--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the joke, although I was a bit skeptical. I clicked on the link but didn't read any of it because the font was uncomfortably small for my tired old eyes. Thanks for bringing some levity into my wikiworld, and your other kind words. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I hope you can drop by WT:WPM sometime soon, I think you might find the atmosphere refreshing. I wish you all the best and hope that our paths will cross again. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 18:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jul–Sep 2007

[edit] Paranormal arbitration

We're really going to promulgate an arbitration finding captioned "three-layer cake with frosting"? :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(Rolls eyes) Apparently so. Not my style, but probably not worth fussing over. If you want though, I'll broach the subject on the AC mailing list. Paul August ☎ 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right to let it go; for what it's worth, we'll probably have already crossed the Rubicon with the impending adoption of a remedy in another case prescribing that editors violating the ruling "will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves." I have made a note of the creative opportunities now open to me for future workshop proposals. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, as discussed on the proposed decision talkpage, the "scum of the universe" line as used by Perfectblue97 is apparently a literary allusion to the movie Men in Black. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayan Muni

You you have any access to any text from this Muni, Kindly share.BalanceRestored 11:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I was wondering if ArbCom would be taking up the User:TREYWiki case or if anyone from ArbCom had looked it over. According to an admin, it was emailed in. ArbCom's attention would be appericated. Thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Paul August ☎ 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rest of the Story

Hello Paul,

I noticed on the article on The Rest of the Story that you were the last one to edit it. There was a sentence in there about a James Burke TV show called Connections. I couldn't figure out what connection that had to Paul Harvey's radio show; so I deleted it. Please take a look and replace it if there's something I missed. Let me know what happens.

Thanks!

Jeffrey JBFrenchhorn 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. Your deletion seems sound. Paul August ☎ 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYE (For Your Entertainment)

Q: What is the physicist's definition of a vector space?
A: A set V satisfying the axiom that for any x in V, x has a little arrow drawn over it
A student was asked to present a talk on the Gram–Schmidt process. It did not go well. The slides were smudged, the lettering was minuscule, and the order was chaotic. At the end, the dejected student wailed: "I knew this would happen; I’m terrible at projections!"
And from a Sidney Harris cartoon: The trouble with Möbius is he thinks there's only one side to every question.

(Not all jokes are good jokes.) :-D

I hope all is well in your world. Remember to find time to stop and admire the equations. --KSmrq^T 10:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

-) Paul August ☎ 18: 01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

I notice you signed up as an early proponent for the creation of WikiProject Logic. Since then, the proposed project has been moved to it's own space and you have been listed as a Charter Member. Thank you for paving the way for the creation of this project. This is an invitation for your continued and perhaps renewed participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 03:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

OK, here's your chance to comment on the DRV. As I post this, there is only one remark, and it's as clueless and lazy as the comments at the AfD — too lazy even to try my pre-packaged web search link. Sigh. --KSmrq^T 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've commented at the DRV. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Progress looks promising.

Meanwhile, an understandably annoyed editor has made Code2000 a redirect — to a page that links back to Code2000! (I left a personal message to go to the DRV.) I'm thinking it would be more helpful to expunge that, leaving the redlink so more people will notice. But I don't know the protocol, and I don't know what that does to the edit history and restoring the previous article. --KSmrq^T 10:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This will all soon be sorted. Paul August ☎ 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And so it was. Thanks for all your help.

Incidentally, the STIX Fonts project site says "Font Set Beta Release Targeted for 23 July", which is today. Based on past history the release will be delayed; but Real Soon Now. :-) --KSmrq^T 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Edit

Happy First Edit Day, Paul August/Archive Index, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

FROM YOUR FRIEND:

ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

[edit] RFAR Piotrus

Hi, Paul. I don't know if you've noticed that Irpen has posted a suggestion for a "novel solution" in the Piotrus RFAR?[74] I've been discussing this with Irpen, and he has obviously given it a lot of thought. And compare his contributions ! Piotrus and Ghirla have commented, but I worry that the arbs may not notice the post, where Irpen has placed it. It would be great if you have time to read it, and, if you like, comment on it. There are some truly excellent content contributors involved in the case, as of course you know, and I would love to see some—any—solution implemented whereby we have a chance to avoid losing one or more of them. Best, Bishonen | talk 10:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. Thanks for the note. Sorry for the tardy reply. I had already read Irpen's post — so it was noticed by at least one arb — and I've just re-read it now, along with the following discussion. I haven't yet commented because I'm not sure yet exactly what to say there. I respect Irpin and find his contributions to ArbCom issues insightful and helpful. I will think some more about the issue and respond there. I certainly share your concern over the prospect of loosing any of the great content producers involved here. Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul, thank you for the interest in our discussions. I have replied to your comments; you may also want to review various points discussed above on this page. On the related note: the "great content producers" involved in this case, and many other across Wikipedia, are leaving this project due to being subject to a torrent of incivility. I have seen many good editors leave this project because they were called a troll or a nationalist once too many. I have seen academics whom I wanted to involve in this project refuse to contribute after realizing they can be subject to Usenet-level flaming. And I myself am getting wary of checking my watchlist and new messages and reading various slanderous comments ("Piotrus is wheel-warring, supporting pet trolls and a rabid nationalist POV-pusher") on a daily basis. If the ArbCom cannot safeguards the editors - great content producers or not - from flames, the project is destined to slowly burning down, until only thick-skinned Usenet flame-veterans are left :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice as to how to proceed on the article on Food Irradiation.

I would like to hear your advice as to how to proceed on a current deadlock on the article on Food Irradiation. After an edit war the article was blocked and heavily discussed on its talk page each fraction accusing the other of NPOV violations. Personal attacks were common and the Mediation Cabal was brought in for mediation. The mediation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Food_irradiation/Mediation_discussion was created and the only user User:MonstretM who presented a differing viewpoint to the rest of the group abandoned mediation citing lack of experience and bias of the mediator. The underlying issue as I see it is that either party feels that the other would like to guve undue weight to a minority position. There are also issues with out of context citations etc. on the article. My question to you is if you feel if formal mediation might be a helpful step prior to asking for abribitration or if there is additional steps that we might pursue. My gut feeling is that there is a lack of good faith assumption on either side of the debate. Thanks for your advice. RayosMcQueen 19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elagabalus

Elagabalus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. DrKiernan 07:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Er

Er, I already closed the case (since 24 hours had elapsed since Kirill's fourth vote), so editing proposed decision won't help! :-) You may want to make the same update on the case page page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. Cheers, Picaroon (t) 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Logic

Has there ever been a WikiProject with so many people sabbotaging it at every step? WHY O WHY O WHY are you holding the tagging hostage? I have been waiting for weeks to see what we have under the assessment chart. What exactly is it that you were supporting when you signed up "in support" of the logic project if we can't tag the pages? This is bad faith. I did everything right, and people still find a way to shit on my efforts. If you are going to vote no, then you are going to have to be responsible for any move forward. Please work with Trovatore, to start the bot with some kind of list or the project is going to end up shut down. I am certainly not going to tag those myself. Gregbard 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel frustrated. I signed up for the logic project because I'm interested in logic and improving that part of the encyclopedia. But I think it is problematic to tag so many articles which do not seem to me to fall into scope of the project. Paul August ☎ 21:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is more than enough justification for all of these categories. These guys have no place saying what ISN'T logic. It doesn't work that way. They say themselves that they don't get it. So, what are you going to do to help move this thing forward on behalf of the whole project? If we have to "consensus" our way forward the project is over because of these guys. It just gets folded up into WikiProject Math. Screw anyone else. That includes linguistics, and computer science too I guess. Screw 'em all. I have put in a plea for help at project systemic bias, and at npov. Gregbard 23:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to get anywhere with an attitude like that. Consensus is the way we do things on Wikipedia. Paul August ☎ 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mild refactoring in Talk:Antiderivative

I corrected my notation for the square root, removed your note about it, and inserted a note at the beginning of the section, giving you credit for the correction. I hope you don't mind. This technique is called mild refactoring. I did that for enhancing the readability of the text. This is an important service to the readers and facilitates the participation of others to this discussion, because it emphasizes the main topic.

You can delete this remark as soon as you read it.

Regards and thanks again for your help, Paolo.dL 09:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paolo. I saw your refactoring (a process with which I am very familiar) and your post to me about it. I don't think it is a good idea to edit other peoples comments. But I don't have a big problem with your edits there. The issue of "credit" certainly doesn't matter. Regards, Paul August ☎ 16:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions

Dear Paul,

sorry for contacting you directly, as I am generally opposed to the parties of the case communicating with the arbitrators directly (by email or even off the case pages as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Ethical conduct) but I am just letting you know that the response to your questions has been posted.

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision#Reply to comment and questions from Paul August includes the input from many editors. Thank you for your attention to this matter. --Irpen 19:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G'day

G'day. I am a mediator and often requested as arbitrator in real life. If I can help the Arbitration body please let me know. I didn't know who I should email about this so I thought in just letting you know. Daoken 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will most appreciate if you find the time to drop me a line about how can I help with my background and experience in arbitration Daoken 11:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Daoken. There are several ways your expertise might be useful. You can participate in any our dispute resolution processes (see WP:DR), these include, among others, RFCs (see WP:RFC), mediation (see WP:M) and arbitration (see WP:AP). As for arbitration, any editor is welcome to participate in any arbitration case (see WP:RFAR), for example, by providing evidence on a case's evidence page (e.g. see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Evidence), or by helping to craft proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, on a case's workshop page (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Workshop) which help the arbiters in writing there decision (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Proposed decision). You can also help with arbitration cases by clerking (see WP:CLERK). Or you might want to consider becoming an arbiter (see WP:AC) I hope this helps. Regards, Paul August ☎ 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for the information and your time. I can see that to provide help in those areas is more an initiative from the user to get involved than a process of locating specialized knowledge. It is a fine way to do things, I sincerely hope it works as needed, I think it probably do. I don't have all the online time that may be necessary for pursuing that escalated involvement, but if at any time there appears the need to consult a professional mediator and arbitrator, which may happen in some special situation, please feel free to drop me a line, I will be most glad in lending a hand at backstage. You know where to find me. Thank you, my congratulations for the work you are doing and all my best Daoken 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arb on Me and Chrisjnelson

You voted not to hear it because there was no RFC. An RFC was opened and it has just been closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson. I hope that this will allow the ArbCom to take this up. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

At the time of my post this edit had not been made. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

selfworm^Talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

selfworm^Talk) 03:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson

Hi. I am writing to encourage you to take a look at some of the later comments and reconsider your opinion on accepting the Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson case. This issue is creating a massive disruption. You said that you were declining it pending an RFC. There actually have been two. I would strongly suggest Arbcom stepping in and settling this extreme personality conflict. Thank you for your consideration. --B 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Journal of Scientific Exploration

Care to comment about the series of edits ending here by QuackGuru. I assure you this is a POV Push stemming from an ongoing debate from Talk:Stephen Barrett where he is claimed that JSE describes itself as a "fringe journal". He is trying to disqualify the entire journal as a reliable source of criticism. I also wonder what your take is. I (and others) have been trying to introduce some criticism of Barrett's writing performed by Professor Kauffman and published by JSE. Since QuackGuru discounts the journal as "fringe", he also disqualifies Kauffman's analysis as an unreliable source. Any input from you at the JSE artilce and/or Stephen Barrett would be most appreciated. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten his last edit. Paul August ☎ 02:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email for you

Let me know when it arrives - thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got it. Paul August ☎ 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some guy

Hey, some guy called "Paul August" vandalized your vacation template, I've fixed it for you! :-P Bishonen | talk 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

What they don't have the "June Sep" month where you live? :-P Paul August ☎ 21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposed: Medicamina Faciei Feminae → Ovid

It has been proposed to merge the content of Medicamina Faciei Feminae into Ovid. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 17:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many empty sets?

I do not object to your desire to treat the empty set as unique. But I believe that it was I who had changed the set article to refer to "an empty set." The reason I made the change was to accommodate the context, which said (and now once again says) "A set can have zero members. Such a set is called the empty set." You must agree that this is an unhappy collision of indefinite and definite articles, of assertions of existence and (subtle) assertions of uniqueness. Furthermore, the expression "Such a set..." means in mathematical prose "any such set" or even "every such set." One way that this problem could be resolved is to rework the passage to something more like "There is a set with zero members, which is called the empty set." What say I just do that?

I'd also point out that both your change to the article and your accompanying edit summary—"only one empty set"—gloss over a legitimate contrary view: for some purposes, like strongly typed reasoning, it is desirable to distinguish, say, between the set of Beatles obtained by deleting Ringo from the set {Ringo} and the set of integers whose square is 2, because sets of Beatles are not the same as sets of integers. Yes, of course, one might posit some isomorphism between Beatle sets and various integer sets, and since that's an equivalence relation, those two sets are "the same" to within isomorphism. Hence my first sentence in previous paragraph.

If you wish to reply, please hit my talk page.—PaulTanenbaum 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I'm fine with your proposed change above. I'm aware of other views about the empty set but I don't think we need to address them in the "set" article. As an aside though, I can't help thinking that every Beatle who is in the set {Ringo} / {Ringo} is also an integer whose square is 2, and vice versa. Paul August ☎ 18:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that certainly is not a rat hole we need to go down in the "set" article. And I quite like your observation that no such Beatle fails to be such an integer. When my connection becomes more reliable, I'll make the change we've agreed on. Regards—PaulTanenbaum 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(I've copied the above discussion to talk:set. Any continuation can take place there)

[edit] Sets

Hi Paul,

Don't worry, I don't take any offense. I was actually just about to send you a message regarding my addition of a small section to the talk page of "set". I also replied to both your and revolver's statements in the if vs if and only if section of the same page. I had recently noticed wikiproject mathematics and was intending to join, so thanks for confirming my interest. Also, please do note that those definitions weren't intended to be completely formal, just relatively formal by comparision to the amount of sophistication I noticed. Sincerely, Liempt 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will reply on talk:set, with my views. Paul August ☎ 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An apology

Paul, I want to apologize for the comments I made about you here, which I've struck out. They were too strongly worded, unfair, and inappropriate for a public page. I disagree with you about these issues, and I'll probably continue to disagree, but I accept you're struggling to make sense of complex problems that so far no one has produced a perfect solution for. The way we'll reach that solution is by exchanging views in good faith, and comments like mine today don't help that process. I'm sorry. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Slim. I appreciate your comments. No hard feelings here. Disagreement is appropriate and welcome. Heaven knows I am often wrong. My concern in all this is only for the well being of the encyclopedia. There are tradeoffs involved here and it is not easy to determine the right balance between conflicting goods. I am certainly not arrogant enough to think I know the answer. Paul August ☎ 21:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oct–Dec 2007

[edit] Paranormal arbitration

We're really going to promulgate an arbitration finding captioned "three-layer cake with frosting"? :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(Rolls eyes) Apparently so. Not my style, but probably not worth fussing over. If you want though, I'll broach the subject on the AC mailing list. Paul August ☎ 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayan Muni

You you have any access to any text from this Muni, Kindly share.BalanceRestored 11:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I'll take a look. Paul August ☎ 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rest of the Story

Hello Paul,

Thanks!

Jeffrey JBFrenchhorn 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. Your deletion seems sound. Paul August ☎ 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYE (For Your Entertainment)

Q: What is the physicist's definition of a vector space?
A: A set V satisfying the axiom that for any x in V, x has a little arrow drawn over it
A student was asked to present a talk on the Gram–Schmidt process. It did not go well. The slides were smudged, the lettering was minuscule, and the order was chaotic. At the end, the dejected student wailed: "I knew this would happen; I’m terrible at projections!"
And from a Sidney Harris cartoon: The trouble with Möbius is he thinks there's only one side to every question.

(Not all jokes are good jokes.) :-D

I hope all is well in your world. Remember to find time to stop and admire the equations. --KSmrq^T 10:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

-) Paul August ☎ 18: 01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

Gregbard 03:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

I've commented at the DRV. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Progress looks promising.

This will all soon be sorted. Paul August ☎ 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And so it was. Thanks for all your help.

[edit] First Edit

Happy First Edit Day, Paul August/Archive Index, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

FROM YOUR FRIEND:

ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

[edit] RFAR Piotrus

Hi, Paul. I don't know if you've noticed that Irpen has posted a suggestion for a "novel solution" in the Piotrus RFAR?[75] I've been discussing this with Irpen, and he has obviously given it a lot of thought. And compare his contributions ! Piotrus and Ghirla have commented, but I worry that the arbs may not notice the post, where Irpen has placed it. It would be great if you have time to read it, and, if you like, comment on it. There are some truly excellent content contributors involved in the case, as of course you know, and I would love to see some—any—solution implemented whereby we have a chance to avoid losing one or more of them. Best, Bishonen | talk 10:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Advice as to how to proceed on the article on Food Irradiation.

[edit] Elagabalus

[edit] Er

[edit] WikiProject Logic

You're not going to get anywhere with an attitude like that. Consensus is the way we do things on Wikipedia. Paul August ☎ 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mild refactoring in Talk:Antiderivative

You can delete this remark as soon as you read it.

Regards and thanks again for your help, Paolo.dL 09:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions

Dear Paul,

[edit] G'day

I will most appreciate if you find the time to drop me a line about how can I help with my background and experience in arbitration Daoken 11:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arb on Me and Chrisjnelson

At the time of my post this edit had not been made. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

selfworm^Talk) 03:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson

[edit] Journal of Scientific Exploration

I've rewritten his last edit. Paul August ☎ 02:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email for you

Let me know when it arrives - thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got it. Paul August ☎ 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some guy

Hey, some guy called "Paul August" vandalized your vacation template, I've fixed it for you! :-P Bishonen | talk 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

What they don't have the "June Sep" month where you live? :-P Paul August ☎ 21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposed: Medicamina Faciei Feminae → Ovid

[edit] How many empty sets?

If you wish to reply, please hit my talk page.—PaulTanenbaum 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(I've copied the above discussion to talk:set. Any continuation can take place there)

[edit] Sets

Hi Paul,

Thanks. I will reply on talk:set, with my views. Paul August ☎ 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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]

[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