User talk:Paul August/Archive4

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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops!

You deleted Evanss's AfD, and not the article! Haha, its fine though, and restored. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I got the article too. Redwolf24 (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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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:

1. Modern mathematicians don't think of sets as collections of objects.
2. Modern mathematicians consider all models of ZFC to be equivalent.
3. If they didn't, they'd be "naive".
4. An axiomatic treatment is necessary to avoid the Russell paradox.
5. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

3. 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.)

4. How would you describe the kind of set theory Cantor did?

   "Informal" or "pre-formal".

   A rose by any other name …

5. 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.

6. Yes, modern mathematicians don't "work in axiomatic set theory".
7. Yes, of course, modern mathematicians "think of sets as collections of objects".
8. Yes, of course, modern mathematicians don't "consider all models of ZFC to be equivalent".
9. 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.

10. 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.

11. I'm not sure what your number five means exactly, nor do I know enough history to know with any precision what Cantor conceived.
12. 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.

13. 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)

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)

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, Redwolf24 (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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! Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Objectivist poets

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

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. User:Paul August cuts a big chuck from his talk page, to archive (under protest!)
2. User:Paul August cuts a chuck from is talk page, to move his newest barnstar to his user page.
3. User:Paul August saves his user page, with the new shiny barnstar.
4. 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)

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 [1] [2] (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: [3]). 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)

Esperanza elections

File:Voting box clipart.gif

Hi Paul August/Archive4: 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!

➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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