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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]]
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
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)
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.
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.
(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)
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)
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)
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 ;-)
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:
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 (), 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.
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 2ℵ0 > 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.
In mathematics, the term bounded is use to designate a set whose elements in a container of finite size. More formally, the set 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 , where 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 is unbounded if, for any c and any r, 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 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:
Where is the distance between z and y in set Z. We take the maximal 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 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.
A very common use of infinity is in calculus and mathematical analysis, for example:
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; and cannot be used in places where a real number can normally be used. For example, is true, but 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 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
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 . 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, 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?
The AC notation is more unique: the meaning of A′ is already overloaded: e.g. A′ as derivative of A.
AC 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) , (3) AC, (4) ~A, (5) comp(A). A′ is probably the most frequent one, so if you want to change from AC 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
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:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ;-)
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,
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Whig09:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)
Move of "Mathematical beauty" to "Aesthetics in mathematics"
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Congratulations, and you're very welcome! Sjakkalle 13:45, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. – ABCD 17:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah I see. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 18:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
# 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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).
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)
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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 ♬ talk16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
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 ♬ talk06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 ;-)
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! Aldux12:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)
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
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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! --Albanau03:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 Stewart19:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the input Charles. Paul August☎ 03:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
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?
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)
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
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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. 70.57.82.11405:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)
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)
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 & KabbalahISBN0815630271. It will not help with the Great Project but it should afford you much plesaure. —Theo (Talk)23:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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. elvenscout74211:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
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). elvenscout74222:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 Rubin21:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 Alexandrov02:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)
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. ral315 01:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. --Trovatore15:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
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? Aldux21:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
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.
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 ;-) Aldux16:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
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! Aldux19:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
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.
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
...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! --HappyCamper01:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
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/tɔktəmi19:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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/tɔktəmi20:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. OCNative03:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
ok thanks. I looked around but could not find any confirmation. Paul August☎ 03:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)? --Durin17:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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. ;-)
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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 brah05:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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
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 brah05:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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 Bauder19:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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.
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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. - Marshman00:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 - Marshman18:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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 StrangeLove04:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 StrangeLove03:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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)Reply
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
Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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 | Talk14:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 | Talk07:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
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. DoomBringer18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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? --Trovatore18:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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. DoomBringer19:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. DoomBringer19:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. DoomBringer21:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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? --Trovatore21:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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? --Trovatore04:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 --Trovatore05:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
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.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 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?—encephalonεγκέφαλον 05:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC) Sorry, I see what you mean.—encephalonεγκέφαλον05:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.)
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. --HappyCamper19:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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, --Daveb02:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 Stewart14:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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 on07:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
I've been accused of vandalism - someone want to ban me? Oleg? Jitse? Fil? Nate the Stork? Func? Bish? Sj?
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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 Alexandrov20:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
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 Alexandrov00:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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'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)Reply
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.
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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?Reply
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 +
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
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. --Trovatore21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. --Trovatore03:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. --Trovatore05:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
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 Rubin13:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
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 VB, 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. --Trovatore17:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply
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
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)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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? Aldux09:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 Aldux19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
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", mortalorvenial. If I had, I would have given you some more penance ;-) vade in pace. Paul August☎20:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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 :) --Kiand16:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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.
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. -- SwissCelt03:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
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. :) --nihon04:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 byPaul August (talk • contribs)
"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.) Geogre03:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
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...
Jim05:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
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.) Geogre18:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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!! Jim19:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
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. Geogre19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Voting box clipart.gifHi 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 hereby 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!
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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
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 & 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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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? Aldux21:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)! Aldux12:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for correcting the recent revision to Euler's identity where the (unkown) editor claimed that is not one of the two square roots of . I was pleased that someone was paying attention and made the correction. Thanks again. -- Metacomet04:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
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
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.David61819:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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!
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
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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 00718:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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... 192.94.94.10507:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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! --Celestianpowerháblame16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 Bugnolo12:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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! --Fastfission19:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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, 87.122.1.15722:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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.
Matveiko04:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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. --Wetman05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
(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. James08416:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
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. Geogre08:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Geogre10:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
"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)Reply
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.) Geogre19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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). --Fastfission21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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 byMdinowitz (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)Reply
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 byMdinowitz (talk • contribs) .
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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)Reply
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
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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. E4mmacro07:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.) Geogre23:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
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 Seekerদ07:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. :-) —Encephalon00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.) BenetD19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
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 Reid23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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.
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 Reid22:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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".
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 Reid04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
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 Reid03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well you know what Emerson said about consistency … ;-)
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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) Wikiklrsc18:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
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) Wikiklrsc20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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) Wikiklrsc21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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. Sparky20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
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.
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 Clark17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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)". LambiamTalk12:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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! --Aldux14:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Image copyright problem with Image:Rabid_xmas_dog.jpg
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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:
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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, Ziggurat23:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.) Geogre03:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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,
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. -lethetalk+02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
([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.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. Eagletalk03:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Could you please talk something in the below link??
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.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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). --Trovatore04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
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)Reply
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 ---CH20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
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 ;-)
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).
Haisch16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.
Haisch17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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?"
Haisch17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.
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.
Haisch18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.Haisch20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
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. ---CH18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.---CH19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.Haisch19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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 | talk09:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC).Reply
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.Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
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.Haisch18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.Haisch19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
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."
Haisch05:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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.
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. ~ Kalki05:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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.---CH04:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.
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.
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.
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Hi He (may I call you He?), When I wrote that the notation and was 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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
/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 | talk07:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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 | talk19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
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?Reply
Sir Giano, Bishonen and Paul on the battle fieldBishonen 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 | talk21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.) -- llywrch16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 | Talk16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments12 people in discussion
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]
… 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)Reply
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. Geogre17:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.--Aldux21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. --RobthTalk15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. --Wetman17:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Rebecca23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion
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)Reply
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.
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. --KSmrqT11:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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. --KSmrqT11:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Giano20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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! Giano21:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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... Pawl17:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. qp10qp15:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
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-j22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for editing Element. Really. It's a bit below par, and could a bit of content. However, I noted that you replaced 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? --GracenotesT § 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 Giano08:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. --KSmrqT09:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. --KSmrqT08:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Geogre16:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
ArbCom "Tongue in Cheek" Question" for Paul August
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. Solipsist306:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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? toresbe23:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
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, toresbe03:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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? linas16:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
"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 Bowen20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 Bowen21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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!
NinaEliza05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
When you get back, you'll find two unanswered questions from me on your ArbCom question and answers page. Please have a look. --Cyde Weys17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. — Sebastian23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
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 i19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
Edit: Perhaps you mean the 'unsigned' notice, which is {{unsigned}}.
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)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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. Gimmetrow06:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Gimmetrow06:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 Pragensis10:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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! :-))))--Aldux21:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.
More on demand. :-D
As for advice, forget it. The last time I offered you advice, it was a suggestion for rewriting the last line of your candidate statement. Like most people offered advice, you ignored it; and now look at the mess you’re in! ;-) --KSmrqT08:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wow thanks K, you'll never know how much I needed a good laugh just now! I especially enjoyed the third. And yes I'm certainly in a mess. As for your advice, as a purely tactical matter your advice was shown to be correct. And it wasn't ignored, it was simply not followed, there's a difference ;-) Paul August☎18:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I add my congratulations. Now in the service of your newfound responsibilities could you kindly hop on over to the requests for arbitration page and please fix the Giano situation and heal the community as a New Year's present for all of us. I'll give you till Tuesday because of the holiday. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.
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).
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. —LestatdeLioncourt17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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--Sailko12:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 --Sailko01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. Grandad20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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 | Natter02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
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?
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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. Hazelorb03:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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. Giano19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
::::*"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. Giano21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Martintg18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. Giano21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. --Ideogram05:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. --Ideogram06:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. Geogre15:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
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? --Ideogram16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.—Kbolino16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. DurovaCharge!21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
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, Purples03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
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, Purples06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. Purples07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. Purples07:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 Osli7300:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I saw your rewording of remedy #5 re Freakofnurture ... but it still reads prospectively ... how about "have been restored"? Regards, Newyorkbrad14:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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?”
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 --KSmrqT06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Obviously these sentient reptiles differ somewhat from the common terrestrial reptile; but then, so did dinosaurs. ;-) --KSmrqT11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hi quick question regarding the votes, do we get to defend our selves at all? or just let it go until we get banned. Artaxiad02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. Artaxiad02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. Artaxiad02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. Artaxiad03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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? Thatcher13120:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. Thatcher13121:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. Thatcher13121:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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]--Dacy6922:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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? --ΕυπάτωρTalk!!01:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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.--Dacy6901:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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.--Dacy6913:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. Grandmaster18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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, Arcfrk08:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. - Fedayee18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 - Fedayee02:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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!
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
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 :-) Ryanpostlethwaitecontribs/talk21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Plank12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
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! Arcfrk10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. :-). --KSmrqT15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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"). linas15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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.Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
WikiThanks
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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. Submillimeter06:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
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.
- 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.
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)Reply
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.
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.--Asdfg1234519:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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. --HappyInGeneral21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Mcconn16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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). Jsw66319:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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.
JFD05:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. ISBN0415361664
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. ISBN0766158012
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. ISBN0415162343
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. ISBN0415329191
[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. ISBN1902806018
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. ISBN0871136562
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. ISBN031333126X
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.
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...
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.
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 ?
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. JFD09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
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.
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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
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/c12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Perhaps I will have to run for arbitrator myself, just to see what life is like on the other side of the curtain. :) Newyorkbrad16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
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/c23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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--Cronholm14423:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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, Newyorkbrad04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. :) Newyorkbrad13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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 --Cronholm14417:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
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--Cronholm14418:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. --Cronholm14418:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
(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)Reply
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, Newyorkbrad01:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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....NeutralHomerT:C01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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. --KSmrqT11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. --KSmrqT10:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
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. :-) --KSmrqT16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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 | talk10:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC).Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Advice as to how to proceed on the article on Food Irradiation.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. RayosMcQueen19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. DrKiernan07:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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. Gregbard21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. Gregbard23:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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. Daoken19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
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 Daoken11:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
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 Daoken18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
selfwormTalk) 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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. --B15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. -- Levine2112discuss23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
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—PaulTanenbaum03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
(I've copied the above discussion to talk:set. Any continuation can take place there)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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, Liempt17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
"Newyorkbrad's proposal" didn't really address the question of whether there is a small handful of sites (the canonical example being the site at issue in the original MONGO case) that are so very problematic that they shouldn't be linked to at all. But as I noted on the talkpage of the proposed decision, I've cross-posted my thoughts to a policy discussion page for discussion there if people want to use them as a starting point for anything. Newyorkbrad16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think we can't and shouldn't make a specific never rule, because it depends on the notability of the site, which can change. There certainly are sites, like the canonical one, we should never link to now; but that is fortunately because it is not notable enough. We do link to Wikipedia Watch, which is pretty clearly an attack site, however has gotten substantial press. (And has been the result of the poorly thought out Daniel Brandt deletion, but spilt milk.) Should the canonical site get non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources, we'll link to it. We'll interpret Wikipedia:Notability as strictly as we can, of course, we aren't masochists, but we are an encyclopedia first, and a community only second. But we shouldn't say that in this official decision, because ... WP:BEANS if nothing else. Nyb's proposal describing that we shouldn't link to attack pages, and should discourage linking to attack sites (though it doesn't quite use those words, since he's smarter than I am), does cover both those cases sufficiently. As I complained, it doesn't completely cover the notable-site-with-front-page-attack case, but I don't have any good ideas for that myself. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and Nyb's proposal is a lot better than nothing. By the way, I keep having thoughts of drafting Nyb for arbcom half a year early; or at least blocking anyone who opposes his nomination at the proper time as a blatant vandal... :-)--AnonEMouse(squeak)16:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Back to the large print, however, how do you feel about making those proposals, based on existing policies and guidelines, per Newyorkbrad and Alecmcconroy? I normally wouldn't pick on an arbitrator like that, but
the proposed decision page doesn't seem to be getting anywhere currently,
these do seem to have widespread popular support, and might even get enough arbitrators to support them
What do you think of the alternatives to "Malicious sites" proposed by Kirill, as principle 15.1 on the Proposed decision page, or the alternative proposed by Alecmconroy here? Paul August☎17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
(unindent) I like Alecmcconroy's. Kirill's has one important difference, that he specifies "[Wikipedia]'s volunteers". Alecmcconroy's says much the same thing for "specific living individuals". The difference is that Wikipedia's volunteers should not get special treatment for them written into our code. Amc's can be justified by WP:BLP. Kirill's is new legislation.
As long as you're asking me, I'd be thrilled if you'd propose:
15.2) Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing specific living individuals, including, but not limited to, our editors. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
The change
protects us from accusations of better treatment for our editors than our article subjects.
justifies the proposal with existing policy, instead of legislating from the judge's bench
incorporates the rest of WP:BLP by reference, so, if by some horrible occurrence, the harassment of our editors were to become notable in and of itself, we'd be able to judge it using WP:BLP vs WP:NPOV, the same way we'd judge writing about or linking to harassment of other people. (See my comment on Amc's proposal, your link.)
That specific section of WP:BLP contains wonderful language, such as "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words." and "do no harm" and "including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced". Incorporating all that by reference is exactly what we want. --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I saw that you made a deletion on my talk page (you deleted the belittling title that one anonymous coward user add to my talk page ,btw, I have a guess who it was). I cant remember that I ask you (or any body else) to do so-don’t do it again.--Gilisa06:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I was in the process of adding a map with each site when you brought back the satellite map. The info box along with a professional-looking map really enhances every article dealing with Ancient Greek cities in Asia Minor, as other examples that I provided. I haven't removed a single picture in my revisions except for that one because a Wiki map in unison with a large photo in an infobox gives you everything you want to know at a glance. I understand it was your photo, but I am trying to improve all of the articles so don't take it personally :)Monsieurdl17:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi Monsieurdl. Well I don't like info boxes. However the satelite map is helpful since it is more detailed. I've added it back in the "Geography" section. If you disagree let's discuss this on the article's talk page. By the way It doesn't matter to me in the least that the image was "mine" ;-) Paul August☎17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A template has been created that seems to have substantially changed the wording and the extent of the remedy you voted for at [[75]]. I am currently discussing this at [[76]] and I would welcome you input. I have posted this same message on the talk pages of the other 5 arbritrators who voted for remedy 2. Meowy16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.
The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.
I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.
If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion.Antelantalk06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think it is best to follow the normal procedures for archiving discussions on that page. If the consensus of the editors of that page disagree, then that discussion can be removed early. Paul August☎15:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Considering that some of those editors are complaining, I disagree. And starting another discussion about a disruptive discussion doesn't sound like a great idea. That said, I don't plan on reverting. - jc3715:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
I left a comment there encouraging everyone to be mindful of the concerns that the discussion might be disruptive. I'm sure everyone will be mindful of not disrupting the DRV. I hope this will resolve the issue of archiving the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Carl Friedrich Gauss 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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Since I have not been able to get an answer to this on the project page, let me ask you directly: Did you receive Durova's "secret evidence" prior to the blocking of User:!!? Isarig (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As an arbitrator involved in the Privatemusings case, I thought you should know about a recent event. An IP address has been autoblocked because it had been used by Privatemusings in the past. I have posted the info on the log sheet here. Happy editing. Icestorm81522:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'll be the first to say that my judgement was distorted last month, but these problems do exist. Wikipedia has far too few volunteers who work at this kind of thing so the ones who do bear a heavy load. Notice the estimated 10-20 hours of cleanup required for the Virtualology problem after investigation. Is it really in Wikipedia's best interests for ArbCom to take a hard line on the volunteers who work very hard in good faith and fall short of perfection? DurovaCharge!03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
On the ArbCom page you linked to above, in support of this principle:
New contributors are prospective Wikipedians and are therefore our most valuable resource. Editors are expected to treat newcomers with kindness and patience. Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Blocking policy states, "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking, ... but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking."
I wrote the following:
"It appears that this important principle is being ignored with regularity. It is much better to err on the side of caution in situations like this. Disruptive editors will eventually be identified and dealt with soon enough. Good new editors are a necessary resource for the project. If treated poorly they usually leave becoming a permanent source of bad PR, dissuading many others from participating as well. This is a serious matter. One good editor lost does far more harm to the project than dozens of disruptive editors not blocked at the first possible moment."
I stand by what I wrote. While we need to protect the encyclopedia against "bad" editors, we should be able to do it without at the same time alienating "good" ones. If there is a reasonable doubt about which is which, we should assume good faith. That was not done in this case. As you write above, "these problems do exist". But I don't think that the problems are so great that we should abandon the presumption of innocence.
I don't know what I would have done in the instances you cite. I choose not to involve myself in such matters outside the the confines of ArbCom proceedings, as such involvement can become prejudicial. Paul August☎17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Then you would not have taken either matter to arbitration? It would be good to have a clear articulation from the Committee about what constitutes an arbitratable administrative error. My own perspective has its flaws, yet please consider whether the Committee's present course may have a chilling effect upon administrative action. Some boldness is foolhardy--I'm the example of that. Yet I worry that in the site's present climate, good faith mistakes that would have been resolved with discussion a year ago could result in desysoppings now. And that those desysoppings proceed with such haste that they may overstate the former administrator's faults, thus hindering the individual's ability to rebuild a reputation. DurovaCharge!22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
There's a common principle in Western jurisprudence, often phrased as some variant of "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". We even have an article on it: Blackstone's formulation. It's fairly well accepted. And, yes, it causes a lot of problems for the next people the ten guilty ones run into ... but there it is. If you read our article on it, you may read that Benjamin Franklin expanded ten to a hundred, while Bismarck had the exact opposite view, "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape". Personally, out of those two choices, wouldn't you rather be with Franklin? :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Possible arbcom process for dealing with wider set of related conflicts?
These conflict are all related to, what I perceive to be, certain editors' use of these articles (and potentially others) for the purpose of pushing nationalist views, breaking Wikipedia principles relating to WP:POV, WP:COAT, WP:SOURCES and WP:OR, to name a few. This user has also deleted articles or links to articles which which he does not agree with. I feel that I have raised these issues (POV, etc) with him but have met with no understanding. I have also nominated the articles Serb propaganda and 7th Muslim Brigade for deletion. The latter is still pending while the outcome of the afd process on the Serb propaganda article was no consensus. While I agree that the subject deserves an article, Serb propaganda certainly was an important factor in the Yugoslav Wars, I, as did most of the non-Bosniak editors who participated in the afd debate, feel that the current article is grossly POV.
My question is, rather than engaging in never ending reverts and engaging in lengthy and extremely time consuming mediation processes for each individual article / conflict, is there a way to deal with what is the underlying problem with all of them, namely WP:POV, in one single mediation/arbitration process? All the other problems are merely symptoms/results of the underlying nationalist POV being pushed in these articles? Stiflerecently mentioned that there was a precedent for dealing with conflicts related to Balkan issues where an "editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process" (where I take the first two to also cover POV issues). Could this be used as a basis for such an arbitration process?
If it becomes too time consuming to continously seek remedies against people who are consistently misusing Wikipedia to push nationalist views, only die hard natioalists and people with extreme views will have the tenacity to edit pages which attract these types of editors. Unfortunately, some of these articles are not notable enough to draw a large number of editors and the POV pushing is often quite subtle (though more often, such as in the examples I cite above, it's not). I believe an arbcom encompassing a wider set of smaller conflicts related to the same issue or user(s) would be an efficient way of dealing with these types of probelems. Your comments and/or guidance on this matter would be much appreciated.Osli73 (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
With all due respect, I must comment Osli73's claims. He says he is having problems with me and user:Grandy, which is wrong. He is just having problems with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you look at his block log he is constantly blocked because he permanently breaks Wikipedia rules:
00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)
09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli7 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ({{UsernameHardBlocked}}: {{arbcom}})
07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ({{arbcom}})
12:23, 5 December 2007 Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen
Regarding his claims that the problems are results of the nationalist POV being pushed in the articles he mentioned above, I also can't agree on that. If you look at the history of those articles you will find this:
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The practical result of what has been done to the cold fusion article is the public will get misleading information on the current status of cold fusion. Since cold fusion is something that can be a major benefit to the human race, this is a serious error.
I have decided to give up on Wikipedia. PCarbon seems to me to have the patience of a saint. PCarbon has told me that he is also quitting Wikipedia. I will admit that cold fusion is a complex and unique issue. I think that most people who do not have at least a bachelor’s degree in the physical sciences or engineering would have a hard time grasping it. However there are many notable exceptions to this rule.
Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights. Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments. Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not active.
Even while this political assault was under way, Nature refused to publish a positive result on the grounds that the issue was already decided. Melvin Miles had an initial negative result which he reported to the DOE committee. The DOE committee told the world about this negative result. When Melvin Miles later reported a positive result to the DOE committee, the DOE committee reported the result to no one.
This is how the “consensus” and de facto censorship came about. Cold fusion was done in by the political method, not by the scientific method.
The experiments have gone on for 18 years. Something like 3500 scientific papers by hundreds of scientists with PhDs in physics and chemistry have been written. Since 1992 nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been found. These nuclear transmutations are proof that nuclear reactions are occurring.
More heat, tritium, He3, and He4 has been found. Some x-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles have been found. Reproducibility has improved.
Now some comments about Wikipedia. When working on the cold fusion article I have merely tried to include the experimenters’ point of view. I have not tried to censor or delete the skeptics’ point of view. I have tried to create a NPOV article.
I have a problem with some of Wikipedia’s rules and how they are applied. The rules do not show a grasp of the scientific method. Wikipedia has a nest of self appointed scientific censors that do not have a grasp of the scientific method. The scientific method is that experiment is the reality check of science. The only logical proof against experiment is experimental error. Consensus, existing the theory, and expertise can cast doubt on an experiment, but they are not a logical proof that negates experimental evidence. To imply other wise is a use of the political method. Your “undue” weight rule is seriously flawed. It seems to favor consensus over truth and does not give experimental evidence its proper weight. The principal of “information suppression” is well described in the NPOV Tutorial. Wikipedia does nothing to stop “information suppression.” Wikipedia claims that NPOV is its highest principal, but it does not enforce it. Apparently consensus is its highest principal. Truth and facts do not make the list. I do not see how content dispute is not a NPOV dispute. I do not see why “information suppression” is allowed under content dispute. “Content dispute” just seems to be a buzz word for doing nothing. I was told by one of your admins that if Wikipedia had existed in the Middle Ages, it would say the world was flat. If this is true, you should put this statement on your home page as a warning label.
You seem to be overrun with censors who like to throw around words like pseudoscience, pathological science, proto science, and fringe science. These are nonsense words. There only purpose they serve is political name calling. It is not all that complicated. If you are following the scientific method you are practicing science. If you are not following the scientific method you are not practicing science. If you make mistakes while following the scientific method, you are still practicing science.
There are ways that Wikipedia can improve their product. Wikipedia could change its rules to incorporate a sense of the scientific method and give experiment its proper weight They could stop using old censorship to justify new censorship. They could bring their nest of scientific censors under control. They could stop publishing articles on controversial science or new science since they cannot do it competently. They could issue warning labels. They could stop “information suppression”. They could enforce NPOV. They could resolve disputes with people who are scientifically knowledgeable and do not have a censorship passion or axe to grind.
However Wikipedia does not seem to be interested in reform. Ron Marshall (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Doc, I have returned Bishonen's evidence section as you left it. I would appreciate it, if you would do two things, restore her preamble:
Excerpt from log at en-admins, December 22 (an exact copy, typos and all). Posted per one version of WP:PRIVATE, as correspondence that is intended to harass or intimidate the recipient.
Not too sure it is a good idea to highlight the fact that illicit logs remain in the page history. That would make the removal a little moot. Anyway, Bishonen has since amended her evidence, so you will excuse me if I walk away here. Indeed, I'm unwatching all the connected pages Have a good new year.--Docg11:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.
But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.
I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.
But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.
Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version.
Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.
I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.
Larry Pieniazek
NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "O"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "P"s through "S"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [77]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Ok. I did not write that on the article. I must have rollbacked a rollback. I'm so sorry! While using Lupin, it must have "double rollbacked". But I did not do that edit! Yes it was an accident, but please keep it mind I did not mean to do it. Sorry - OhmpandyaWe need to talk... ♦ contribs23:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I believe you. Can you please look into how this edit occured? You should do whatever you can to try to make sure that such errors are unlikely to occur in the future. Thanks. Paul August☎23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think I figured out why. We must have both been using Lupin, (anti-vandal tool), and he/she must have clicked "Rollback" just a second before I did. And since the tool did not detect that the vandalism had already been reverted, it let me rollback as well. He/She "rollbacked" the real vandal, and I "rollbacked" him, and put the vandalism back on the page, accidentally, sorry! - OhmpandyaWe need to talk... ♦ contribs23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'd like to invite you to participate in the Boolean algebra
task force that I am forming. Despite the name, a task force is just an ad hoc subcommittee of a wikiproject to work on a particular issue. In this case, I think that our articles on various aspects of Boolean algebra, propositional logic, and applications would benefit from some big-picture planning of the organization of material into various articles. The task force would not require a great time commitment. The main goal is to work out a proposal for how the material should be arranged. A second goal is for the focus to remain interdisciplinary, including computer science, logic, and mathematics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Template:Ent2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Hi Flo. I know you don't mean to imply that I haven't been working on this case until now! Since, of course, as you well know, I've been participating in the AC mailing list discussion from the begining.
For the avoidance of doubt, and the benefit of other readers of this page, I have in fact been "working" on this case all along. I have been closely following all the case pages, even though I've only chosen to comment rarely. In my view, it would have been better not to have accepted this case. Having accepted this case I believe it would now be best to dismiss this case, and I moved for dismissal 12 days ago. Because of this, I chose not to vote on any of the proposals of the case or offer any proposals of my own. On February 1 Steve moved to close the case, and as there was a majority opposed to dismissal, I decided to offer four proposals of my own:
The "admin" IRC channel has been the source of many on-wiki disputes and conflicts. There are disputes regarding its status and governance, its misuse, and its relative benefits to the encyclopedia.
Between December 23 and December 26, 2007, several editors, both supporters and detractors of the "admin" IRC channel were involved in an edit war at Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins.
Edit-warring is bad even when conducted on non-mainspace pages whose significance and status is unclear and in dispute. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are admonished to avoid such actions and instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel.
If the case is not to be dismissed, then I believe that these proposals together with the already passing principles, are sufficient for an acceptable resolution of this case. In addition, today I have begun to vote on the rest of the case. I expect to finish voting today. After which I will vote to close the case. If we are not going to dismiss this case then we should close it as soon as possible.
Flo, I hope you don't mind this overly formal reply, but I didn't want anyone to get the false impression that I have been ignoring this case — far from it! Yes I also hope we can resolve the core issues. You take care too.
I'm glad to see you voting on the case and adding proposals that you feel reflect the core issues. Last Friday before I left town for the week end, on the arbcom email list I encouraged all interested arbitrators to add their proposals so we can move closer to closing the case. In the email I said that I hoped that we could do a final vote today and close on Feb. 5. I don't think we will meet that deadline but hopefully by the end of the week we will finish up. Your votes today are part of what will make that possible, I think.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul. Sorry for attempting to distract you from the all important deliverance of judgment on the land. If you have time, could you take a look at Talk:Set#Set as an abstract object and tell us what you think? I ask you since you have been a frequent contributor to that article. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Oleg, I've posted a comment there. Paul August☎18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. I would much rather be discussing "sets" than what I spend all my time now discussing. I can think of nothing more I'd rather be distracted from. I don't really believe in prayer, but if I did I'd ask you to pray for me! God knows I need some kind of help.Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've started a thread on a proposed new WikiProject to coordinate Manual of Style pages. I think this might provide a mechanism to address the problem without raising concerns about centralization of authority on the main MoS page. Your comments on whether and how such a WikiProject might work would be very valuable. See WT:MoS#WikiProject Manual of Style. Geometry guy19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Note that the MoS guidlines at WP:MOSBIO call for a person's nationality to be mentioned in the opening sentence of the lead. However, I do not believe "German-Hungarian" is an accurate discription of von Neumann's nationality. I would go with "Hungarian-born American", unless he held citizenship in other states in addition to the U.S. and Austria-Hungary. Relevant here are my proposed amendations to this guideline, which I would ask you to comment on here. Thanks! Robert K S (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Paul August, I just wanted to inform you that I have taken the Wikipedia delegable proxy experiment live. This is a proposal to let users appoint a trusted individual to represent them in debates that they themselves (whether due to time limitations or whatever reason) are not able to personally participate. This system is ideal for your purposes, since given your Arbcom duties, you have limited time to devote to the other aspects of Wikipedia, but many trusted colleagues here. I encourage you to nominate a proxy. The proxy designation instructions are at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. For instance, if you wish to nominate me as a proxy, you can just go to User:Paul August/Proxy, create a new page, and then enter:
Show your support for delegable proxy! Add this userbox to your userpage using {{User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy}}
(Ordinarily I might view this type of message as a potentially questionable type of canvassing, but I feel entitled to contact you about my ideas and concerns since I am your constituent and you my elected official.) Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for fixing links and capitalization etc on the Encyclopedia and Lexicon Technicum articles. I'm new to this and not so sure yet how some of these things work! Terry0051 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Paul. I would like to share with you some updates about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [78]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [79]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support [80]. Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. Regards PHG (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry for the mistake. I had never noticed this long comment before, and I overlooked the SGML quotes and the template. I guess the IP wanted to fix the issues arising from the long Google Books URLs and got similarly confused. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I'm not a math guy. I can template the section as OR and send out an alert to the maths wikiproject, or esle simply undo. Being a non-math guy, the first option would be my choice...Ling.Nut (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Paul,
I am disappointed by your reverts to Continuity property, as the proofs you have reverted to are
a) unnecessary (duplicated elsewhere; I had linked to them)
b) opaque (all of the points proven are proven much more elegantly elsewhere; for example, you may notice if you look carefully that the "proof to claim 2" is a poor proof of the fact that compact subsets of R are bounded)
c) Just plain wrong. Cf. the proof of claim 3, whose notation is confusing and wrong. should instead refer to the image of [a,b].
Your reverts are thoughtless and rash. I am an undergraduate with one semester of Analysis under my belt; last summer, before taking the course, I ran across the page in question and spent several hours trying to make sense of its abstruse constructions. You have done nothing but set up another undergraduate to waste his or her time with this.
Furthermore, regarding your citation of Binmore's "straightforward approach," let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could you keep an eye on edits by Mrg3105 (talk) at the article Prophet? In late August 2007, Mrg3105 radically altered the article to reflect his own POV on the subject, something which was corrected in early November 2007 (see discussion page section entitled "What Happened?"). While many of his recent edits can be called improvements, Mrg3105 succumbed once again to the temptation of extensively revising the article to reflect his own POV, one effect being a sort of mass confusion in the lede. 70.243.229.217 (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You called what I did vandalism. I don't believe it is. Please read Talk:My Neighbor Totoro. Totoro has nothing to do with Shinto. The Catbus, which appears in Totoro, looks very like the Cheshire-Cat in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. But do you say Totoro is something to do with 19th-century England because of that? To say Totoro has shintoist themes only because there appears a shrine is the same as to say that it has something to do with England only because of the resemblance between the Catbus and the Cheshire-Cat.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry Michael, I was trying to revert what I took to be vandalism by IP 67.161.32.117 and others and your edit got caught up in my reversion. I have no opinion on whether the section you deleted belongs in the article or not. I notice that you have given your reasons why you think the section should be deleted on Talk:My Neighbor Totoro, and have stated that you intend to delete the section provided that no one objects by Apr 24, that seems reasonable to me. Regards, Paul August☎15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the protect on Grant Napear. That poor page was sitting right at the threshold where I thought it might be worth going through Process to get it protected, but the typical 3-days wasn't likely to do much to stem the long-term bleeding. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogre lawless (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In this case, FloNight and Kirill have supported the proposal of a Sourcing Adjudication Board remedy. I think there's significant enough opposition (on the talk page, and workshop) to this idea by the general community, excepting editors involved in the particular dispute. Though your name is marked as inactive or away in this case, would appreciate it if you could look through the alternative (and I think more effective) proposal of clearly delineating between content and behavior issues, devolving responsibility on the community. It would be great if this is added as a proposal on the proposed decision page too so other arbitrators can share their thoughts in comparison to the suggested SAB remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Just wanted to remind you (or in case you didn't see it yet, to inform you) that the Tango case has a 9.1 principle proposed by Kirill. Would request your vote on it, as well as on Fof 3. Please also note that FloNight and Jpgordan are reconsidering have changed their votes on the remedies after checking the talk page - the discussion there is eye-opening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC) DoneReply
This isn't a reminder or anything, but just a random comment: I'm a bit startled and curious at the abstain on the 1.3 "desyopped" remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This case should be closed on your return. But I'd like to remind you that 2 arb-clarifications have been waiting (for ages) on the discretionary sanctions wording - they can be closed once voted on, sometime soon hopefully. Kirill has already posted the 3.1 version for voting on the requests page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Particularly from clarifications, amendments & appeals, the requests page has been clogged up recently. I'm going to remind you (or inform you) of some cases that may need your attention, views and reasons, or further discussion to try to fix this problem. Once the page is less clogged up, then that's that :) You may find the links to the cases mentioned at {{RfarOpenTasks}} - created by one of the clerks, AGK.
Currently, there are 2 requests which require arbitrator attention, one involving IRC voting, while the other involves "Episodes and characters". Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Didn't notice the 2 recused - although, I can only see Sam as 'recused' on the case list. There's 2 considered inactive, but that's different. Anyway, cheers for the note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am an administrator open to recall. I started a page regarding the subject at User:John Carter/Adminship, indicating that when three editors filed complaints within 90 days, I would ask an uninvolved admin to review the material and make a recommendation. Three such complaints have been lodged. I initially posted this request to the User talk:UninvitedCompany#Request for review, but have since noted that that party is now inactive. I am thus requesting a different party, you, to review the comments and make any recommendation regarding my continued status as an admin that you might see fit to make. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm very sorry but I don't have the time at the moment to look into this matter. I did read the comments at User:John Carter/Adminship, and without knowing any thing further, they do not make me particularly concerned about your use of administrative tools. My only recommendation is that, whatever you think of the editors who have commented, you take to heart the criticisms they give. None of us are perfect and we can all strive to be better. Best regards, Paul August☎13:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to you as Arbcom member to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter.
This is a massive injustice, and only allows others to continue to assert factually incorrect, malicious, offensive and POV items about my country.
Many thanks
Would like your view on this recent request for arbitration
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
titled "Attachment theory". I agree it should be rejected, but I'd like the Committee to make a solid and definite statement that is more or less saying "profanity, particularly when directed against another editor, is unacceptable and should not ever be condoned." This will acknowledge the fact that there are a few cases that do unfortunately slip through without any sort of action (despite needing it), and hopefully sways reluctant admins to step in with education and warnings or any other necessary action (rather than silently watching). Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noted your vote on the Episodes and Characters clarification, and appreciate the breath of sanity. If it's possible, I would really appreciate someone explaining to your fellow Arbcom members that the request for clarification itself has never been answered: instead of explaining what was originally meant, they decided to reopen the case and introduce new sanctions. Kww (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).
I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.
I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.
It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.
Thanks alot for signing up as willing to answer a few questions, Paul - it's much appreciated. I mentioned to Kirill a short while ago that I don't see any urgency in rushing through this process, but getting the ball rolling will help enormously, I think. I'll drop a note in here in the next few days when the page has had a few more eyes and ears, and there's something of substance you'll be able to respond to. Thanks once again, Privatemusings (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Further to my posts at this Arbitration Committee case and its associated workshop, I have emailed you evidence that includes private information. As I have noted at the workshop, I will leave it to you to share with fellow arbitrators active in the case. Thanks. Risker (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
2 arb-clarifications have been waiting on the discretionary sanctions wording. There are 4ish votes in support of the wording like in the homeopathy case, with 1 in oppose. It's nearly been 2 weeks since it was ready for voting. Can you please vote? I don't know why the rest of the Committee refuses to go near it, but if it's because they don't want discretionary sanctions enacted at all, why won't anyone just oppose and explain why it's not needed in their opinion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Geogre/Connolley RFAR was not supposed to be about Giano... and yet Kirill has added as a FoF an extensive collection of Giano quotations, which he describes as "public attacks against fellow editors".[81] Please note that, pushing the case further over towards being about Giano after all, Kirill had previously offered the same context-free collection in the workshop as "The elephant in the room".[82] I beg arbitrators to study the context Carcharoth supplies in "The detail in the elephant"[83] before they vote. It makes the elephant look rather different. Bishonen | talk08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC).Reply
Elephants are known for something else beside brute strength. The Arbitration committee would do well to rememeber that. I am getting very tired of their behaviour and Wikipedia in general, and while I'm sure their wish is to see the back of me, it would be nice, in their acheivement of their goal, to see some common decency and honour exhibited from them. Giano (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Please revert this, as the word "much" is extremely sloppy and very inaccurate. Furthermore, not having the subject in the beginning is very improper. Also, the word "controversy" has to repeat based on standard nominalization principles. This is basic English, and I can provide you many texts on the necessity of this repetition. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Ottava. Sorry you didn't like my edit. I am not a Pound or The Cantos scholar, so I can't say how accurate the word "much" is here, with any authority. Have you read the relevant sources on this point? Another concern I had with your edit is that it introduces a change of meaning that I'm not certain is supported by the sources. The original sentence was describing "critical discussion" about the relationship between four things, A ("the economic thesis on usura"), B ("Pound's anti-Semitism,"), C ("his adulation of Confucian ideals of government") and D ("his attitude towards fascism") and another thing, E ("the passages of lyrical poetry and historical description that Pound performed with his 'ideographic' technique"). This is clearer in an earlier version of the sentence, by the original author:
"Much critical discussion of the poem has focused on the relationship between, on the one hand, the economic thesis on usura, Pound's anti-Semitism, his adulation of Confucian ideals of government and his attitude towards fascism, and, on the other, passages of lyrical poetry and the historical scene-setting that he performed with his 'ideographic' technique."
This was changed into an assertion that the poem contains "controversial topics" A, B, C, D and G (the relationship of A, B, C, and D, to E). But I wonder if there are sources for each of these five things being "controversial". I've now restored the earlier version of this sentence. Do you like this any better?
As for the need to use the word "controversy", I don't understand it, can you elaborate?
Its not your "edit". Its the original language that I do not like. The topics are all controversial (especially anti-seminitism and economic topics). If the topics themselves aren't necessarily controversial (like Confucian ideals), his support for fascism combined with them is. My rework was a patch work and not the best. I welcome you to tighten the language accordingly. But please don't put that word "much" at the beginning. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, some notes on the section - "one hand" and "other hand" for such a long list gets confusing. The section is about controversies, but not an in-depth analysis. It would be out of place to say there is "critical discussion" in a "controversy" section, because critical discussion could be on non-controversial topics. Hence the need to identify the list outright. "Controversial topics" introduces this idea. The problem is the repeat of variations of "controversy". The first sentence can be removed as contributing nothing to the paragraph, which limits the repetition. Also, here - the ref is to verify the "anti-semitism". Without it, there is a possibility of an edit war. Such descriptives have been subject to conflicts in many pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Proposed language:
Sentence a) The Cantos always provoked controversy over the experimental nature of the writing but this intensified after 1940 when Pound's public approval for Mussolini's fascism became widely known.
Sentence b) Critical discussion of the poem has focused on the relationship between Pound's controversial beliefs (his economic thesis on usura, his anti-Semitism, his adulation of Confucian ideals of government and his attitude towards fascism) with passages of lyrical poetry and the historical scene-setting that he performed with his 'ideographic' technique.
Justification: Tightens the language, removes the repetition of controversy, connects all the ideas together. For "b", the paranthesis emphasize the relationship of the topics while not confusing people with a long list that is separated by commas merging into a comparative clause that is separated by commas.
For the most part, the proposed new language is fine with me — with one caveat. I think that "Crtical discussion" needs to be quantified, otherwise the implication is that the majority of "critical discussion" has focused on these points, which I doubt is the case, and certainly not what the original was saying. Would "considerable critical discussion" work for you? "significant"? Although to my ear "much" sounds better than either of these. Otherwise, I think the tightening is good. Paul August☎18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Would you mind copying this discussion to Talk:The Cantos? It is really best there. Thanks.Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Paul. I'd like to request that you show me how my comments are unhelpful please, either here, or privately. It's the bare facts of the matter. SlimVirgin is running a one man crusade to smear both Lar, and Alison publicly, where their hands are tied due to checkuser privacy policy. Even regarding this, the consensus is markedly against SlimVirgin, which is why she continues to try to find new places to try to forum-shop her smears (Got told that ANI was not the place and if she had a problem with Lar's actions, to file a complaint with the Ombudsmen, or with ArbCom. Instead, she brought it to EN-L and continued to make these smears). She has a habit of doing so (when the first ArbCom got opened, she attempted an end-run around English Wikipedia and it's proceedures by trying to rally support for a BADSITES-like proposal on the FOUNDATION-L list). Even if my comments are "unhelpful" they are completely accurate. SirFozzie (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Paul, sorry to bother you. Slp1 and I have put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I know you were one of the editors who agreed with the idea of bringing this article to FA as a tribute to Newyorkbrad, and so I hope you'll be pleased we've come this far. We'd appreciate a peer review from you if you can find the time, to help us iron out any flaws before we go to FAC. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! I know you're occupied with all this Arb stuff, but I'd be grateful if you could have a look here. I'm really angry with all this edit-warring which has suddenly erupted, and I really feel like wanting to kick some asses. Sorry, but this situation has annoyed me a lot. Cheers and thanks in advance.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I request you to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion.
I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Paul, would you pass on the message below to the arbcom mailing list, please? Normally of course I wouldn't comment on a user without informing him/her about it, but this is a special case, in that Ncmvocalist deleted my last two posts to his page. (He also removed a number of posts he didn't like on the admins' noticeboard thread that my links below refer to.) I hope somebody passes on this one to him...but I'll be darned if I post another message on his page. Deleting civil, informative messages from respectable users (=er, that would be me) is...well... let's just put it that I'm not about to give him a third chance to do that.
Message:
I'm rather shocked that Ncmvocalist has apparently been invited to clerk the RFAr, after this lot (see especially WJScribe's trenchant comment: "one of the more ill-advised discussions brought to a board where ill-advised discussions regularly abound"), and this deletion, too, and this comment by Carcharoth.
I've seen people ask how to become arbcom clerks and be told that the way is simply to start clerking. Therefore I fear being told here that "nobody invited him, he just started." (Told in good faith, needless to say.) But Kirill did, specifically, invite Ncmvocalist, as specifically "perfectly suited for the job": [84] Well, I don't agree that he is. He has shown poor judgment and isn't suited for the job. If Kirill invited him before being aware of these things--for instance, before WJScribe had made his comment--then Ncmvocalist can and should be un-unvited, surely? Clerking is an important job.
Bishonen | talk22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC).Reply
Oh, I see, good thinking. No, thanks, don't send another e-mail to the list, I don't want to bore people to that extent. Do you have any comment yourself on what I say, Paul? For the ordinary user, the list is a mere black hole, so it's a bit boring to post to it. Bishonen | talk22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC).Reply
Well I don't know what you mean by "Ncmvocalist has apparently been invited to clerk the RFAr"; what RFAr are you talking about? In any case Ncmvocalist is not a clerk — the process of becoming a clerk is described at WP:CLERK. I expect that Kirill's post is related to the fact that Ncmvocalist has been acting the gadfly, buzzing around pestering various arbs to do their jobs (e.g. see this very page), a role eminently suitable for a clerk. Paul August☎03:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I mean: to clerk the RFAR pages. To become a clerk. People used to be encouraged to simply begin if they were interested in doing the job, but I see from WP:CLERK that that's not the case now—"Clerks are appointed by the Arbitration Committee"—so I should rather have advised the committee against appointing him. (Perhaps you'd like to reply to my message and say so?) He's obviously practising for it, as WP:CLERK advises people to do if interested. The specific reason I thought he had to already be a clerk was Kirill's invitation [85], plus Ncmvocalist's post here. See how that's posted in the area for non-recused clerks? Bishonen | talk09:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC).Reply
Goads are alright, if they're delivered by a drover. Is this creature a parasite or a guide? Given his highly emotional display and his lack of dispassion, merely telling arbs to do something may not be enough to indicate judgment. Geogre (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I sincerely hope that Ncmvocalist is not allowed to clerk anything related to ArbCom. I do not think his approach is suited to the task, and some of the things done already by Ncmvocalist have been, in my view, rather counter productive... (in particular "pestering" arbs is not what is needed...) If there is a better place to give this input please advise and I will do so. ++Lar: t/c14:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well unfortunately, we all need something (pestering? goading? bugging? prodding?)) now and then. Of course there are good ways of pestering and bad, Newyorkbrad's methods were the acme of the polite but persistent nudge. As for proper venues, this is probably not the best. Paul August☎16:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
OK, since you say you all need pestering, here's a little more
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hold this very tightly in your hands when you go to sleep tonight. Have garlic soup for supper. You are mixing with forces we do not understand
Hello Paul. I'm a little concerned with this comment you made earlier today. It's one thing saying that Giano's comments weren't civil in your opinion, but others obviously disagree with that. For you to go and insinuate that you also believe Chillum is a useless twit, when you were voicing your opinion as an arbitrator is unacceptable in my opinion. I hope you consider an apology to Chillum for the way your comments have come across. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
(Edit conflict with above) It doesn't matter if you are an arbitrator or not - this comment was completely unacceptable, and contained a personal attack. You should definitely know better. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
It was a terrible thing to say Paul, I was quite shocked. I should imagine that IRC#admin's are having the vapours left right and centre. They are not used to being treated like that. They are very important people, who have earned the respect of the community. Shame on you. You are lucky it was only Ryan they sent to sort you out, it could have been someone far more sinister. I shall say an Ave Maria for you, perhaps even two. Giano (talk)
Is it entirely necessary to give a longtime contributor a templated message that begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia"? Other people left more sensible messages about the same issue already. We need more personal communication and less mindless button-pushing. Friday(talk)16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi Bstone, assuming you think I'm new to Wikipedia, thanks for the welcome. But I'm afraid it's a bit late, as I arrived in July of 2004 ;-) You don't say, but I assume you are referring to this edit. My comment was not intended as (and I don't think it was) a personal attack. In any case I've offered my apologies to Chillium there. Paul August☎16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh the irony! Bstone's talk page prominently displays the following:
If your message is rude, templated, and/or begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia!", it will be reverted upon me seeing it. Note: Thank you notes are not included in this warning.
Latest comment: 16 years ago22 comments20 people in discussion
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, [I'm] free at last.
I've resigned from the Arbitration Committee — except that I intend to remain active on all cases in which I am currently participating. Thanks to all those who voted for me, and to all those who have supported me in doing this very difficult job. I apologize for not serving out my full term. Three years is a long time.
Since this is a valedictory of sorts, permit me the vain indulgence of sharing some thoughts.
... it has not been the ArbCom's job to decide content, nor to write policy, nor to govern. There are those who feel that ArbCom's role should be expanded to include these things. I do not. As a member of ArbCom I would work to keep its power properly circumscribed.
The fundamental virtue of Wikipedia — the reason for its amazing success — has been its egalitarian bottom-up organization. The Arbitration Committee has been an unfortunate though necessary exception to this. Aristotle has told us that man is by nature a political animal. The Arbitration Committee has to some extent shown a natural and increasing tendency to extend its power and scope — we should all guard against this. Power is sticky, it clumps and accretes. Be careful of giving power to those who want it for its own sake.
Factionalism has been an increasingly worrying issue. I also wrote in my candidate statement that:
There are plenty of people, who go out of their way to attack and disrupt, more of us need to go out of our way to cherish and support. It is probably not enough for us to simply be polite, reasonable and constructive. We need to do more. We need to actively cultivate, nurture and sustain our fellow editors.
This need has never been more urgent. We are fortunate to have many dedicated editors, who care deeply about our encyclopedia and who obviously share a love of knowledge and the belief that making knowledge available to all can make the world a better place. Unfortunately, some of our most dedicated editors are also our most divisive. We should let our shared values unite us, rather than our disagreements divide.
One final self-quote:
For me, contributing to Wikipedia is a noble act. Knowledge is power. We can all feel justifiably proud that the words we are helping to write, will help to empower untold millions of people, all over the world.
This is why I contribute to this project, and why I will continue to do so -- my dedication to this noble endeavor remains undiminished. I'm very much looking forward to the pleasures of being a simple editor again, to once more experience the joy and satisfaction of writing the encyclopedia.
Well Paul - all I can say is best of luck in the future. You've done a really good job in your role - I still remember encountering you in the first Betacommand case, and your judgement and ability to analize evidence amazed me - this has continued to the present day. I'm sure you'll keep working on your math related articles - enjoy life in the background. All the best, RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
You were certainly not a member of ArbCom I thought should or expected to resign. I do hope you might reconsider in the future? --Barberio (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Barberio, I greatly value Paul's work on ArbCom and asked him to delay making this announcement, hoping he would change his mind after a break from ArbCom. But after thinking it over he decided to resign. I still hope that he changes his mind. If so, then I would strongly lobby for a place for him on the Committee. But for now, I want to join in others thanking him for his work. FloNight♥♥♥20:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I wish you all the best and I think you know we all give thanks for your wise counsel as an arbitrator. Good quality writing and editing is the greatest service to the encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
You did some awesome work, Paul, over the past three years and you'll be sorely missed as an Arbitrator. Best wishes for the future - Alison❤21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations Paul on your liberation. I'm glad someone who truly cared for the project tried. I hope your efforts prove not to have been all in vain. Yours is a marvellous sentiment: "We should let our shared values unite us, rather than our disagreements divide." It was once mine too, but, the problem is, sadly, as I suspect you now realise, that there are no shared values, none at all - none whatsoever - between the Arbcom and those working to build/write an encyclopedia. It is all about gaining power, and at the end of the day power over who? Someone, one has never met, never likely to meet, and could be gone tomorrow and probably will be. Far better to write a few pages and leave a mark here that way - even this rotten Arbcom cannot take that away for their own ego-improving ends. Giano (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your hard work as an arbitrator, Paul. You have performed your duties better than anybody could have asked, and your presence will be sorely missed. Just try and not feel too bored when mainspace editing. There's always plenty of Arbcom-l discussions if you have a spare hour. :-) All the best, Anthøny02:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad I noticed this. While I'm disappointed (there are several arbitrators whom I have been very glad were on the committee, and you are indeed one); I so understand and am empathetic. I wish you well : ) - jc3702:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sad to see this, though I certainly can't blame you for not wanting to do it anymore. Have a great time in the mainspace. May we all read what you wrote above. We need to take it to heart. Heimstern Läufer(talk)03:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
When the person who got the most unanimous support of all the candidates has resigned, and when persons little supported remain and increase involvement, the instrument is sick. I concur with your warnings, Paul, and I rather think that self-selected power is the [cross of iron] of Wikipedia. As those who believe in themselves rather than the group push forward to take power ("did you know that no one is in charge? cool!"), there is more than a nuisance involved. The ultimate price to be paid will be to make statutory the bleeding out that we've seen accidentally over the years. People will join for the opportunity, stay for the validity of the promise, and then leave. This is the end, and it will be an end brought about as testimony to what T. S. Eliot said, "The majority of mankind is lazy-minded, incurious, absorbed in vanities, and tepid in emotion." Geogre (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Freedom is valued by oneself. You can be free and poor as well as rich and constricted. It all depends on how you treat it. Sometimes we do need to take a step back so that we can be more true to ourselves. I do not know what your intentions were to resign, but as long as it is what you really want, then may it be the right decision when you look at it sometime down the road. Been a pleasure working as a AC/C for you. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps11:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think I cast the first vote for you back in 2006. Sorry to see you go, but I trust your judgment, and decision. Best wishes. Jd2718 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
(ec) It's bittersweet for a few of us, and indeed, you will be sorely missed. Your committment, wisdom, as well as the tremendous amount of work you've put in the ArbCom has been almost too valuable to lose. To that effect, like FloNight, I do hope you'll come back at some point. That said, I recall you earlier expressing how much time has been consumed by ArbCom work (even through emails), that you have almost no time for the article space - this should no longer be an issue now. To this effect, I can appreciate your decision and I do think you'll be happy with it for some time at least. In any case, thank you, and wishing you all the best - Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Came here from the Signpost article, and I wish they'd included the paragraph of your statement before what was actually quoted. The paragraph before was good things for all editors to keep in mind. (As was your whole statement here.) :) Hope to come across and work with you on articles someday. Best, LaughingVulcan03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Paul, I was wondering if you can take a look at my recent interactions with User:Mathsci and give your opinion? I have basically already stopped actively contributing to wikipedia because of his overbearing behavior; now it appears that he is willing to go even further and has started issuing me ultimatums, [87]. Thank you very much in advance! Arcfrk (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
P.S. I am going to leave a similar request at Charles Matthews' talk page.
I'm very sorry about all this. You have certainly demonstrated considerable expertise and have made many excellent contributions. It would be very unfortunate for our encyclopedia not to have the benefit of your continued contributions. I will see what I can do. Unfortunately I have been temporarily reduced to being a one-handed typist, so my activity here will be limited for a while. In addition to Charles, three other mathematics editors whose opinions in such matters I would respect are Oleg Alexandrov, Jitse Niesen and Trovatore. I'd be willing to ask them to lend a hand, unless of course you'd rather I not. Regards, Paul August☎19:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Yes, I would very much appreciate it if you do contact them (I discussed similar problems with Oleg in the past). Sorry to hear about your hand — I hope that it is nothing serious. Best wishes, Arcfrk (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please see the comments on Charles Matthews' page. I spoke by telephone to User:R.e.b. about Arcfrk's problematic behaviour yesterday, before he contacted you. User:R.e.b. is one of our top mathematics editors: he is the editor who asked me to contribute to WPM. Charles knows our real life identities. Arcfrk's contributions seems to have degenerated to low-level trolling. He consistently refuses to provide sources and is more often than not wrong in what he claims. He is extremely problematic in his interactions with other mathematics editors. Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that use of the word "trolling" is helpful here. Your description of Arcfrk, is not in accord with my experience. I've written a bit more at Charles' talk page. For the sake of centralization of discussion, I suggest we continue there. Paul August☎14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Whether the proposed Disputed Islands infobox is neutral in its presentation of basic article information
Whether there is a valid reason to exclude the proposed infobox from the article
I should note that I am involved in the discussion, but I do not want to influence your opinion should you choose to offer one. I merely want some uninvolved editors to view the discussion and then offer an opinion. If you choose to participate, please post your opinion in the RFC comments section there. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe05:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
It seems 75.164.10.218 did vandalism, 208.48.205.170 replaced that text with 'writings' when it had been 'dialogues', and you reverted the whole thing back to the original 'dialogues'. I looked at your revert on Changes and it looked like you were changing 'writings' to 'dialogues' and calling it vandalism. Solved. Hopefully this won't come up very often, it is just the sort of thing I would forget to check for even now that I know of itAnarchangel (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Paul, I just nomed Filiocht's article on H.D. at FAR and was hoping you might have time to take a look and comment. A FAR on a '04 promotion was going to happen anyway, so I'm acting preemptivly at a time when I will be able to respond. The page remans fairly heathy since the FAC, it is reasonably well cited, but just needs a little polish here and there. I remember the work you did during the Yeats FAR, and was hoping you might be able to help out here as well, even if only offering suggestions or fighting against the 1 cite per sentence police. Either way, best. Ceoilsláinte22:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I have unblocked 8 IP addresses that you indefinitely blocked. Per WP:Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Additionally, "Vandalism-only account" should never be given as the reason to block an IP address, as IP addresses aren't accounts. Most of the IPs in question had never even been blocked before, so an indefinite block was particularly inappropriate for these cases, especially for run-of-the-mill vandalism. Finally, I find your block of User:71.201.234.208 particularly problematic. This user had his first edit (minor vandalism) in over 8 months, had never been previously blocked or even warned, and no notice of the block was given after your indefinite block of him. I realize these blocks occurred quite a while ago, so I hope that you have refreshed up on the blocking policy since. If not, I strongly encourage you to read up on its changes, as indefinitely blocking IP addresses, while it used to be a somewhat common practice, is virtually nonexistent now. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (slightly edited from original to better convey my intent).Reply
VegaDark, I am not seeing the problem here, and am concerned with the tone that you are using towards Paul August, who has been a member of WP:ARBCOM. Even just looking at the history of 71.201.234.208 (talk·contribs), the IP had been used for nothing but vandalism for years, so there was no reasonable assumption of good faith, so I'm not understanding why there was a need to unblock without consultation. We routinely place longterm blocks on anon accounts, for example see {{schoolblock}}. We also routinely place indefinite blocks on proxy IDs, and these blocks can be done "on sight" with no need for warning. VegaDark, it would have been better in this case, and more collegial, if you asked Paul August for his reasoning, per WP:BLOCK#Unblocking. For example, you could have said, "Hi, I was reviewing indefinite blocks on anon IPs, and I saw that you'd blocked the following IPs indefinitely (list). I found this curious, considering that there were no warnings, and that IPs are not normally blocked for long periods. Could you perhaps help explain? I look forward to learning more about blocking procedures on Wikipedia, thanks." --Elonka21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Don't fret. The patient may have been cured but the bedside manner was lacking. This patient didn't really mind, and took his medicine, however ill-tasting. The next patient might not be so agreeable ;-) Paul August☎19:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Unfortunately, Pohta ce-am pohtit has marked his or her user page as retired. I hope that it was not because we were using that talk page to discuss. It would be very unfortunate if the effect of T.E.'s block was to push some other editor away from wikipedia.
I appreciate your point that we don't want to be in the business of censoring people's talk page posts. I thought about removing the post myself for a moment, but since I was aware that several editors on the math talk page are very reluctant to see anything prematurely removed, I left the comment in place.
My main concern with using the wikiproject talk page is not that I think the people there are likely to be biased, or that the review would be inappropriate. My main concern is that I don't want (non-math) editors to get the idea that the math project is a clique, or that math editors are somehow subject to special standards that can only be enforced by other math editors. I posted a longer note about that for Pohta at [88]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes I saw and was disappointed that Pohta ce-am pohtit had done that. And I am worried that I might have contributed to that. I wanted to send an email, but the email feature is not enabled.
I am glad that you understand my concerns. I assure you I understand and share yours. As nearly always there are tradeoffs. We most emphatically do not want to give credence to notions of cliquishness or "special standards", yet the notion that, those who are familiar with an editor and their work may have useful points of view, has merit. We do not want to have inappropriate discussions at the Mathematics project page, yet how should such decisions be made, and by whom? My answer would be by discussion and consensus of the members of that project. Not, say, by fiat from outside. Paul August☎18:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I interrupted the conversation that way. I just felt, and still feel that my participation on this site isn't worth my time anymore. Don't get me wrong, the math community here is one of the nicest around, but the generalized belligerence and outright silliness in the community at large is not something I care to deal with anymore, e.g. this, this, or that. The Pontius Pilate attitude of the ArbCom in cases were content is affected, which are the only ones that matter to me, doesn't inspire much confidence in future of this place. Surely the personality-driven drama will continue to attract people. After all, soap operas are profitable. The policies get applied only when someone with the right buttons or friends gets pissed off, like it happened to Topology Expert or Peter Damian. Also, search Wikipedia Review for John Harnad. Avoiding "cliques" in the math community sounds like a good idea only until you realize what the community at large is all about. The overt contempt for expert contributors, which has become so rampant here, and is never rebuked, reminds of a similar series of events within the Fedora community. Some devs got attacked on the support forum, which is ran without oversight from Red Hat, after said devs asked users to, horrors, submit bug reports. After a couple hundred messages on the devel list, the result was that devs boycotted in mass the user forum, and one even burned out and renounced all his involvement. The bottom line is: I have much more productive uses for my time. Pcapping16:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
User:Paul August has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Paul August's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Paul August!
Paul, I don't do barnstars or any of that stuff, and I've no idea what's so special about this day. But I do want you to know that for me you're in the absolute top of all the thousands Wikipedians I know. Thank you for everything. And I really do hope that you will continue to contribute, even though Wikipedia does not deserve it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much Jitse. Not sure it's deserved but it is much appreciated, especially coming from you. And the feeling is mutual ;-) Paul August☎22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I started editing the article dependent and independent variables, which was a real mess, and added some cited content under the math section. However, there is all this content under the statistics section that is uncited, and wanted to know if someone would help me find sources for this information, or challenge and remove it? kilbad (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Do you know that in this edit, you changed the article to an article about a different person? The Australian combinatorialist and the American Mathematical physicist born in Connecticut and now at the University of Toledo are two different people. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi Michael. Don't remember anything about this edit. Can't vouch for or explain it at the moment. I'll look into it more when I get a chance. Feel free to edit it however you think appropriate. Paul August☎00:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Paul,
I'm getting pretty tired of all this back and forth on Cantor re Judaism. Of course I would very gladly do something to address the issue myself, but as you may or may not know, I no longer have access to English-language libraries. I only have access to the Internet. Would you and perhaps others be willing to access all of the sources listed etc. and take on the task of revamping the "Ancestry" section, addressing each and every statement/point in a non-OR and non-POV manner? Geometry guy recommended your name in this respect. I'm also contacting Trovatore and Pmanderson. Tks Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. A bit of regex magic made the job relatively painless. I wanted you to know about it so you might be forewarned with respect to other moves like this. Paul August☎13:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
After clicking on the Blender (software) link form the Graphics Lab, I followed the URL to the website (www.blender.org). After installation began, I got a pop-up from my Comcast Spyware software saying it had found large ammounts of Spyware in the software. Then I tried it again today to see if there was any difference, and sure enough, still Spyware. Should there be a note on the Blender (software) page & Graphics Lab's page?
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have nominated Attalus I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Re (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)">?
Hello 128.100.5.116. Sorry I had to revert your edits, and thanks for discussing this rather than just continuing to insist on your edit, that's the best way to handle editorial disagreements. Let me try to explain why I think your edits are problematic.
This reads as asserting that in all numbering systems, both standard and non-standard, every irrational number has a non-repeating representation, which is simply false. The article in fact provides a counterexample, the Golden ratio base.
I concede this sentence is a bit problematic. What it is trying to say is that, not only is it the case that irrational numbers have non-repeating representations in standard positional notation systems, they also have non-repeating representations in most non-standard systems as well, the Golden ratio base, being the only notable exception.
Does this make sense? In any case, I'm happy to discuss this more, but the best place for such discussions is on the talk page of the article in question here, that way other interested editors of that article can participate as well. If you have more to say on the matter, we can copy the above discussion to the talk page and continue it there.
Well, first of all, I don't see this paragraph as talking about any irrational numbers other than the square roots of non-square integers, so I don't know how you get from either wording of it to a statement that all irrational numbers have nonterminating representations in all bases. The more limited statement that all irrational square roots of integers have nonterminating representations is also as you say "problematic" (indeed, false) - the golden ratio base isn't the only exception, you can easily construct, say, a number system with base root-two in which root-two will terminate. I don't know why golden-ratio is a more notable nonstandard exceptional base than root-two; I'm pretty sure I've read about both in the recreational math literature, though I don't have references handy. Anyway, my only real interest was in the grammar. I think the wording I proposed is no less factually correct than the wording you reverted it to, and has the advantage of being closer to English. But I'm not willing to spend time writing new material to correct the factual problems and make the article really cover the material perfectly; I meant to make a simple punctuation fix and was quite surprised anyone would bother to disagree. I'll leave it alone at this point. 128.100.5.116 (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Paul,
Thanks for your correction to codomain; I know little of the subject of function anatomy myself, and was merely trying to adapt a dictionary definition I had on hand to make the introduction more understandable to the average person. I guess my dictionary is wrong. I think Wolfram Mathworld explains it well: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Codomain.html. Maybe we should adapt that definition for the article? As an aside, would it be correct to assert the following?
The codomain is a set Y such that for outputs y of ƒ.
What dictionary were you referencing, and what definition did it give? Unfortunately your attempt to specify the codomain above does not make sense, since you are using "Y" to define "Y". What you have written above is closer to the definition of the image of a function (which as your Mathworld link points out is different from the domain. For a function f, with domain X and codomain Y, the image of f can be idefined as:
which reads in words, "the set of all y in Y, such that there exists an x in X for which y = f(x). However — given the modern definition of a function as an ordered triple (X, Y, G), where X is the domain, Y is the codomain and G is the graph of f — there is no way to use such a specification to define the codomain, because the codomain of f is simply not definable in terms of its inputs and outputs (i.e. its graph), as different functions can have the same inputs and outputs.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just wanted to pop in and say thank you for all of the work you have been doing to make sure that decisions are well-formatted, properly assessed, and then statistically analysed. I've found myself referring to the stats periodically, and really appreciate that the decisions are properly kept in order. You know...you could come back for the last few months of your elected term... :-) Risker (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the thanks. Glad someone thinks these things are useful. Can't say how much longer I will continue to this. As for my coming back ... no thanks ;-) Paul August☎20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Breaks is just a way of citing multiple citations, which I first used in El Greco, and then evolved in Roman-Persian Wars to distinct between primary and secondary sources, but I have no intention to impose them. It is up to you! Of course, I'll add any sources I've used before going to sleep, and it is up to you to judge is these sources should stay or go. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, to me, the breaks just make the "Notes" section, unnecessarily longer. As for quality of the sources I will take a look once you tell me what they are. And as for who is to judge, that will be all of us of course ;-) By the way thanks for your good work here. Paul August☎21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
As I said in the FARC, they are sources from google booking. I have no access to printed sources, and therefore this is only what I find in the Google Book (focusing to as modern as possible secondary sources of established publishers). If you want I can add the urls in the sources.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Here Mitchel has a very long and interesting analysis on Attalus' Gaul War; here is the url, in case you want to add something to the article: [89].--Yannismarou (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello.
I recently made a constructive edit to the aforementioned page, which could not be conceived of as vandalism in any way. However, you rolled back the edit shortly after. Because rollback does not leave an edit summary, please do not use it to rollback good faith constructive edits, as there is no reason left for the reversal.
I didn't think changing the language tag for Finegan's Wake from "English" to "Idioglossia" was a serious edit, hence the revert. You say you made the edit in good faith, and I will take your word for it. Thus I apologize for having not given a reason for my revert, which would have been that, as our article clearly says, despite Joyce's use of what might be called "idioglossia", Finnegans wake is nevertheless written "basically" in English. Paul August☎12:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
[90] Okay, so maybe it isn't the way some others would have done it, but is there a reason for the comment being removed? Perhaps you have an alternate suggestion for me? Risker (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
We both seemed to have overlooked R7 and R7.1, they both appear to be equally passing, but I personally feel 7.1 is the preferred one. Thoughts? Tiptoetytalk19:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar. The sock puppet says "I'll have a beer". The meat puppet says "I'll have a beer". Jimbo says "I'll start an open, collaborative project to establish pillars, policies, guidelines, essays and noticeboards from which to spend one million hours to develop consensus on whether or not any reliable sources verifiably state that there is any beer here, or that this is even a bar at all."
A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar. The sock puppet happened to be a rabbi, and the meat puppet was a priest. However that isn't really important for the purposes of this joke. Anyhow the rabbi and the priest and Jimbo got to talking about religion and it was a pretty good conversation, but they were in London where (I'm told) the pubs close early, so they had to cut it short which was too bad because they were all enjoying themselves. One day later an admin blocked the rabbi and priest for sock and meat puppetry respectively without even knowing they had gotten a wee bit pissed with Jimbo the night before. Someone (probably a rollbacker, knowing them) thought about starting an AN/I thread about how ironic the whole situation was but then got distracted by something else and didn't bother. Look, I didn't say it was a joke. Fine, I did, but I was lying when I said that. And why in the hell did you make me do this anyway? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs23:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wow, that could go into Wiktionary as an example of lame effort! Take my advice, on your next try, mention the 12-inch pianist sitting in the corner. ;) I am sooo going to win this contest... :) Franamax (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oops, you're one of them as uses em-dashes instead of plain 'ol hyphens. If you're reckless enough to use the extra four bytes of server space, I'm clearly out of my element here. Where are the protective monsters when you need help? Franamax (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar. The sock puppet says "I'll have the exact same drink as the patron sitting out on the patio, who I've never seen before in my life despite the strange coincidence that our cars have the same license plate number, but it doesn't matter because I'm getting drunk so at least I won't be driving that car home and it's not my car anyway." The sock puppet knocks over his drink, runs out of the bar, slaps a please-unblock-me-now template on his car and drives home using the back roads. As all this is happening, the meatpuppet steal Jimbo's wallet. At that moment, Jimbo was enlightened. OK, I'm just trying to make Bigtime's pathetic effort respectable now, I can't even rip off Buddhism properly. Bet I could program a bot to do an even worse job though... Franamax (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
The contest is ending early due to a deluge of entries, and because of the emergence of a clear winner. I'd like to thank all those who entered, and acknowledge the obvious amount of time and effort everyone put into their work. Congratulations to all. Now for the prize winners. First prize goes to Franamax, for being the first to enter. First prize also goes to Bigtimepeace, for being first to enter second. Come on up guys and receive your prizes.
Finally "Best in show" goes to our own Paul August for the following entry:
A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar. The sock puppet orders a beer, and logs onto his favorite website and votes in a straw poll about the merits of straw versus socks. Seeing that the sock side is losing, he logs onto a second account, votes again, and offers to buy his friend the meat puppet a pork pie if he will do the same. Which the meat puppet promptly does. Both puppets immediately get blocked, with the message: "Congratulations you've been blocked, Naaaa na naaaa na naaaa nah". This causes a debate to ensue as to whether this is funny or not. And Paul the August, naturally decides to offer a prize for the best completion of "A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar ..." Paul enters his own contest and and awards his doggerel "Best in show". What about Jimbo you say? Well observing all this Jimbo orders a "scotch neat", and says, to no one in particular, "That Paul, what a fine fellow."
Because my entry would have read as follows (submitted for your enertainment):
A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar. The rabbi turns to the priest and says to him, "They'll let anybody in here nowadays." The priest replies, "I need a citation for that." -- llywrch (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
(Sobs, but carefully keeps good side toward camera) Thank you, this is the best day of my life. Especially considering my recent ordeal where the garbage truck backed into the utility pole just outside my dwelling, the one with the 3 transformers and 37 different wiring connections, one of which was labelled Wikipedia. It will all be in my upcoming documentary, including "Putting toothpaste on the brush in the dark", "When the apprentice dropped the one good drill bit and broke it", "When they drove the bucket truck into the tree", and "Even though you're really cautious after startup and only have one single lamp lit, it still gets nuked and it was one of those large-base trilight bulbs that are really hard to find nowadays". I know that God was watching over me and helped me win this award.
I've actually been considering uspacing this whole shebang with an eye to donating it to the project as a humour page. It's relatively fertile ground. Has anyone asked Jimbo for his contest entry? Franamax (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know Jimbo knows nothing about this contest (nor do the sock and meat puppets). Feel free to ask him (or them) for entries. Paul August☎16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
If you're interested in proofing the tallies, numbering, and such for the final decision of the A Man In Black case, I've written a draft at User:AGK/C. You're free to correct, update, or comment on that draft at your leisure. Regards, AGK20:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Question: I saw the notice at the top of the C.S. Lewis article ("This article's citation style may be unclear. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation"). I updated the reference to a standard Book Citation. You undid the reference stating it was redundant (I assume with the Bibliography). Curious as to why. Is a link considered sufficient in Wikipedia? What does their comment re: citation style unclear mean then? Appreciate any advice you can give me.
I saw other references in history to citation style and cite.php
Your edit simply repeated information that was already included in the "References" section (not the "Bibliography" section). That's why I said it was redundant. I don't know what you mean by "Is a link considered sufficient in Wikipedia?" See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information, particularly the section "Shortened footnotes", which is the citation style used (primarily) by that article. However as the notice in the article says the article is inconsistent in it's citation style, for example it also uses "Parenthetical referencing". It would be better if the article used one style only (in this case I think "Shortened footnotes" style would be best). Paul August☎00:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm so sorry for what I did on the hyperreal numbers page. I was caught in a momentary lapse of self-control, and behaved childishly and irrationally. Who knew one simple little word would be so damaging. Thankfully, a hero arrived in the form of Paul August, and I thank you for saving me of my folly. I am truly blessed to have been saved by one such as yourself. Alas, I regret to say this is not the first time such a spell has come over me. The last time I was saved by Dr. Arthur Rubin. His Erdős number is only 1, and he's a 4-time Putnam scholar, so being saved by him was an even bigger blessing, but you take what you can get. Hopefully I never fail to control myself anymore, and if I can once again go without changing articles needlessly, I'd have you to thank. And Dr. Rubin, but that's irrelevant. Once again, I thank you sir, and I apologize.
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Is there a place where deleted article text goes so that I can archive it for my own personal use? Obviously searching the history of the old article does nothing. Please help. I will check back here for a post from you. I hope you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkech (talk • contribs) 05:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Any administrator can access a copy of deleted text, and might if asked provide you with a copy of the text. Asking the admin who deleted the page might work, since they would be familiar with why the page was deleted. Paul August☎13:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am very happy that Attalus kept his star. I am sorry I did not help more to address the remaining reviewers's concerns, but a heavy program, vacations and a broken bone have been keeping me away! I hope that I'll have the chance to cooperate again with you some time in Wikipedia (in FAC, FAR or somewhere else!), because you are one of the gentlest guys around, and it is always a pleasure for any user to work with you. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your kind words. And thanks again (I hope you saw my last comment on that review) for your very valuable work on the article, in particular locating all those secondary sources. I am not so concerned with the star, but I am glad that we were able to improve the article somewhat. Regards, Paul August☎12:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for patching up the linkage in logarithm, but I think we shouldn't really be including this statement and linking to the unsourced bit in common logarithm, at least until we can get some support for it. So I took out the sentence, including your link. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what you are talking about exactly. But I think you might be confusing my edits with the edits made by Cjnelson9. My only edit to the article was to remove the proposed deletion template added by the IP 74.98.46.147 because I felt that in order for this article to be deleted it ought to go through a full deletion discussion first. Paul August☎20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul,
I think your summary on Talk:Pi is reasonably fair. (I'm responding here to avoid cluttering that talk page with further discussion of this.) As far as I can tell, there's not anyone in particular who deserves blame, but somehow the collective actions of several editors amounted to bullying behavior. (For better or ill, the wikiproject does have a tendency to gang up on people sometimes.) For what it's worth, I thought your apology on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics showed a lot of class and did a very good job at diffusing the situation.
Thanks Jim for your comments. Yes I can see why some editors might have felt bullied and I deeply regret that, and my role in that. As you imply I don't think that was the intention of any of the editors involved, but may have been the net effect. (The way in which individual actions each of which is without apparent blame can nevertheless lead to collective blame is a profoundly interesting and important problem.) As you might be able to tell from my comments elsewhere, I have considerable regard for WikiProject Mathematics and its members, so I'm troubled to see you write that the project has a "tendency to gang up on people". I have to say I can't recall any situations I'd describe that way, but my responsibilities with respect to the Arbitration Committee have meant I haven't followed the project as closely as I once did, so perhaps things have changed there. That would be most unfortunate. Jim, I'd really appreciate any pointers you can provide to any past incidents, and I'd especially appreciate being notified of any future ones.
I notice your qualification "for better or ill", recognizing (I suppose) that sometimes the collective will needs to exert itself, even though someone may inevitably feel wronged. This is particularly problematic on Wikipedia. Although occurring within a vast sea of cultural norms, the great majority of editorial decisions are (or at least feel like) individual ones. This is tremendously empowering. But, the more often you get your way, the harder it is to accept when you don't.
I also have enormous respect for WikiProject Mathematics and its members, and I certainly wouldn't say that there's a pattern of bad behavior. It just seems that, by its nature, the wikiproject has a tendency to impose its collective will on mathematics articles, sometimes over the objections of individual editors. I don't have any specific past instances in mind, but many of the posts on the wikiproject talk page seem to be implicit (or sometimes explicit) requests for allies, and we don't tend to be shy about acting collectively when the need arises.
By the way, if Finell doesn't respond to your post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, you may want to try moving the discussion to Talk:Pi. I hardly see how the venue for the discussion matters, but this seems to be something of a sticking point for him, and giving in on this issue might make the rest of the discussion go more smoothly. Jim (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Assuming that the collective will has been properly formed, that it prevails is no bad thing. But, If an editor asks for, or gives, support on any sort of quid pro quo basis, then that violates the ideals upon which Wikipedia is based. Even asking for, or giving, support based upon considerations of obvious expertise and genuinely earned respect may be problematic. Such things undoubtedly occur. It is difficult to imagine how we might eliminate them, and in the latter case weather we should. Perhaps though a project wide discussion would help?
As for the infobox discussion, I'd be happy to move it to Talk:Pi.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I saw that u added links in the Dido disambiguation page. The guidelines show that we only link one item per line. Details are over at MOS:DAB. That whole area of Wikipedia is an interesting place to work. Just thought i'd let u know. Dawnseeker2000 04:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your diplomacy. One of my general tasks on WP is to try to incorporate the fundamentals into logic articles. Unfortunately I find that many mathematicians see this as terrible and irrelevant and delete my work. Please be open-minded that quite a few of these articles in the logic department are not ruined by explicating their relation to their metalogical, philosophical, fundamentals, foundations, etcetera. I would be fine with removing this type of thing from other articles which are father removed. "Set" however is very very fundamental. If someone wants to remove that kind of thing from an article like Grzegorczyk_hierarchy which is several times removed from any philosophical issues and where there really is no reason, that's makes complete sense. But for things like set and theorem I think people need to be more open-minded. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul. This edit removed several statements, including my own. I assume it was unintentional, but I wasn't sure the best way to go about fixing it, so thought I'd ask you. Happy New Year, anyhow. :) MastCellTalk04:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've added back another statement that went missing. I think everything is fixed now, but would welcome a double check. Thanks for looking after me. Paul August☎04:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
Thanks for your note. I've written an explanation of what I reverted and why on the talk page for the article. By all means, let's reach consensus! Roger Pearse (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've just looked through your copyedits and accepted most of them -- thanks for picking this stuff up. The stuff that I was really getting rid of was the "Mithras BC stuff" which was added by someone else, but somewhat hard to prune out by itself! Roger Pearse (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
There were several other changes I made that you have not restored (probably you missed many as they are hard to see in a diff). Can you tell me which if any of my edits you object to? Thanks. It would be best if we continue this discussion on the article talk page. Paul August☎20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh dear! I preferred to leave the AD stuff as profuse as it was. But the other edits all seemed fine. In fact I reinserted them all, or thought I had. What did I miss? Roger Pearse (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You recently blocked Qwertyisbest for page-move vandalism. I just noticed a user named Qwertyismykeyboard editing an article Qwertyisbest was interested in, and the assumption of sockpuppetry doesn't seem too far-fetched. Qwertyismykeyboard's edit wasn't vandalism, though. What should be done? Block evasion is prohibited, of course, but calling for checkuser seems like overkill right now. Should I just wait and watch? Yours, Huon (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I do not want to get into a fight over the AD. CE issue: I left a note on Calcearius talk page, will you look at it and see if any thing else needs to added so that this issue does not become contentious. Thanks. Hardyplants (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think your edit at Epistles of Clement was fine (even though it did revert my "circa" to "c." changes -- which I've now redone -- otherwise my change of one "AD" to "CE" was simply for the purpose of internal consistency). So the article now looks ok to me with respect to date era. I also agree and support RJC's and your comments at User talk:Calcearius, and can't think of anything that needs saying there. But if you need support for your reversion back to BC/AD eras on that article, I will support your edit based upon the argument that the article used that date era originally (although I personally don't put any stock in the "topic" argument). Regards, Paul August☎21:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
There are some people who insists that President Obama is a professor. There are some that want to diminish his achievements. I take the neutral ground.
I think there is confusion between Professor and professor. The difference escapes many people in the general public. Obama was a part time faculty member and was given the title of Lecturer then Senior Lecturer. Senior Lecturer is very honorable but it's not the same as Professor and Chair.
What do you think? Does the average person know the difference between Professor, the title and professor, the generic profession? I think not. To prevent confusion and misunderstanding and not to diminish the man nor inflate his resume, I think that a simple mention that he was on the part time faculty at the University of Chicago Law School where he was a Lecturer and later Senior Lecturer is very honest, accurate, and neutral.
Thank you Paul, I enjoyed working with you also. I'm sure I can speak for the 2009 Committee in saying that we also appreciated your assistance in other capacities since leaving the Committee. --bainer (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Any possibility of reinstating this? It is a perfectly good article although it needs Wikifying and a bit more research on how to link it to other articles. Thanks for your help with the other articles 86.184.133.167 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Usually if you have to manually edit a page to fix the formatting so that your script will accept it, you're doing something very wrong. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I wonder if you could be so kind as to do the honours again. This refers [91]. Could I possibly see the version of Illuminationism that was deleted by Fram? And why did 'Beeblebrox' revert to an inconsistent set of birth dates for Duns Scotus in the same article? Shouldn't rule C5 be treated with discretion and care? Are any of the people here actually qualified to look after an encyclopedia? Regards John Watkins LLD (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul. I notice you're active in maintaining the article on the Roman emperor Nero. I think there may be vandalism in footnote 5 ("Nero was not a fiddle player..."), but I've looked at some past revisions and it's been in place for awhile, so I'm not sure. Would you mind checking it out and addressing it if appropriate? Thanks, Candent shlimazel (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
There is one arb recused on the entire case, Cool Hand Luke, and three arbs inactive Carcharoth , Hersfold , and Wizardman. That leaves 13 active arbs for this case. However on finding 6A, Risker has recused and Mailer Diablo has abstained. That leaves 11 arbs active on this particular finding, thus the majority for this finding is 6. Paul August☎20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Arbitrator recuses from the entire case, they are not counted in the total votes on that case.
Arbitrator does not recuse from the entire case, and recuses partially. Their votes marked "recuse" are counted as votes as "abstain" ???
What's the problem? This has always how things have been counted. A recusal for the entire case reduces the number of active arbs for that case by one. A recusal on a particular proposal reduces the number of active arbs for that proposal by one. Paul August☎20:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think you are confused about how abstains work then. Neither recusals nor abstains are technically "votes", both simply act to reduce the number of voters. Paul August☎20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
So ... if I am understanding this correctly, an "abstain" ( or a recuse ) reduces the number of votes needed for a particular decision to pass, so an "abstain" is sort of like a "weak support"? Cirt (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Nod, thanks. It seems sometimes Arbitrators vote an "abstain", and then add some comment which is a comment in effect in opposition to the remedy in question, perhaps not realizing that by abstaining they are furthering its passage. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Paul August, thanks again very very much for your candor and especially for being so polite and kind with me in your responses regarding this. Yours, Cirt (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking has now been open for 32 days; with only four comments in the past 10 days. RFCBot ran off with the RfC tag two days ago; it's easily time for it to be closed. Due to the nature of the issue, no administrator is truly "uninvolved", but one who is especially well-respected by the community, such as yourself; are the closest thing we've got. Fancy making a close? For reference, I'm contacting former arbitrators who hold admin tools but no other bits. Cheers, Happy‑melon19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The template is deprecated, so I thought that they should be changed. I think the reason is because we should not be talking about an article in a hatnote. Explanations prepared if required.174.3.98.236 (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
After some years of gestation, this article is now largely finished. I am thinking of taking it to FA but would like some thoughts from people first, as I have heard such bad things about this process. It should go there one day, the history of logic is one of the top 50 articles that should be in an encyclopedia. I welcome any thoughts.HistorianofLogic (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Paul. Thanks for changing the title of my request for clarification. In fact you changed it from a correct title to an incorrect title. You are not the first to try the same change so I have changed it back and noted in big letters now. Do you think that it would be clear now with the big letters because the change you and one other editor made... it definitely wasn't correct? Thanks. ~ R.T.G23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've been reading your articles WAY longer than I've been a user, and they rock! They are probably the best sourced, most knowledgeable, and most reliable articles that I've seen! Are you a college professor? Your expertise and writing style make me suspect this.
WikiDude1776 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul. We've collaborated before a long time ago on WP. I was wondering if you could have a look at the Pandora's box article, especially with recently added material on the feminist interpretation which seems to have a lot of OR and POV. It feels fiddly. Ideas? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Paul, for looking and taking action on it. There was a scholarly article by Dr. Jenifer Neils on the topic which I had read in a compendium book and included a long time ago in the article. To wit:
Neils, Jenifer, The Girl in the Pithos: Hesiod’s Elpis, in "Periklean Athens and its Legacy. Problems and Perspectives", eds. J. M. Barringer and J. M. Hurwit (Austin: University of Texas Press), 2005, pp.37-45.
But I hadn't ever recalled reading anything anywhere which resembled what was added in that section. Best wishes ever and many thanks. See you sometime on Mass Ave. ;) --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:
I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").
Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Another query for an opinion, Paul. Special:Contributions/Indike001 seems to have summarized without citations? See Works and Days, for one of many examples and the addition of the "subjects" section. Thoughts? -- if you have time. Is it OR or on the up and up? Best wishes and many thanks in advance. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
In a nutshell - no I can't. I have been trying to revert vandalism, not cause it. certainly in that last example you gave I was reverting the comments left by the previous user and left a comment at their talk page here: User talk:64.219.39.208. So I'm confused. --Wintonian (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Could I ask if you know of any reason for these edits as I am still confused and I am a bit worried that I have done something wrong and wish to correct that? These edits were not intentional and any advice would be appreciated. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks for getting back to me, I'll have another look at the manual, I assume some else was trying to revert the edits at the same time as me. So long as I haven’t done anything wrong, as a newbie I am trying to do things the right way and am grateful for any proper assistance that will help me.--Wintonian (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
GIven that Twinkle may have bugs, or unintended consequences (I don't know I have no experience with it), it is incumbent on you when using it (or other such software) that you check that each edit had the intended result. Paul August☎02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Can I also ask if you were assuming that I was the vandal at the start? Given the evidence that’s fine. Though as I said I will look through the manual again and I take on board the need to check, I will also say that the user is shown a confirmation page of the changes as far as I can remember – I haven’t use it for vandal fighting since you alerted me to the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 02:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
If it were me I'd want to try and find out more about how/why this happened first before I continued to use that software. Have you asked at the talk page I mentioned above? Paul August☎02:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
The FAC is going well but the section on post-war developments needs some help. As I have said, I am not an expert on modern logic at all. Is it true that there was a period of consolidation after WWII? Was forcing the only result of significance? Do we mention 'reverse mathematics'? Help needed!!! From the other side (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
"Typically" being the salient point. Nice bureaucratic edge, there. Funny you had to block an IP pretty much immediately. Tan | 3919:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for consulting me before redacting my admin action. As a courtesy, I'm informing you that I'm going to re-protect it. Tan | 3919:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi Paul, I've reprotected the article. You're correct in that TFAs are usually unprotected; however, this article is obviously very popular and subject to particularly severe vandalism. I've thus protected it for six hours, until it's off the MP. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk20:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict, reply to Paul) Of course I have. Standard practice is that the page isn't usually, or in your words, typically protected, and I don't know where you got your "rarest of circumstances" verbiage. What you cited there is a guideline, and as stated at the top, it needs to be treated with common sense an "the occasional exception". Now, what you had here is an admin who has frequented WP:RFPP for years, assessed the situation, and determined that protection needed to occur. It's being called a hoax article in various media circles - CNN and The Guardian being two of the most visible - and it's garnering way more vandalism than usual. As the actual visibility of the page is much higher due to this media exposure, the frequency of the vandalism goes up - along with repercussions to Wiki's credibility when people load it with "APRIL FOOL YA NIGGAS!!!!1!" on it. Screen shots can be taken. At any rate, it's exceedingly rude to a) undo my action without any consultation at all, and b) to assume that I naively did it without knowing what I was doing. Tan | 39
I apologize (again) for not attempting to consult with you. As for the issue of TFA protection, I've been following this issue for six years. Quoting from Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection: "Administrators only semi-protect the page as a response to extreme levels of vandalism" and "The Main Page featured article is rarely semi-protected. However, there are some extreme circumstances in which semi-protection is appropriate". I drew on those two sentences for my "rarest of circumstances" characterization. Paul August☎20:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Apology accepted. Frankly, you are out of touch with the current climate of protection consensus. What "issue" have you been following for six years? The evolution of a disputed and possibly outdated guideline? I don't see any participation on your part on either the main page or talk page, and given the handful of edits a year to it, "following it" must be a roundly stultifying endeavor. Strictly adhering to a guideline, when policies aren't even binding on this site (see WP:IAR) isn't a good practice. Tan | 3920:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
There's isn't one that I know of. Look, I have utmost respect for you. In most measurements, you're a "better" Wikipedian than I am - you do way more article editing and content work. I have utmost respect for that. If one of us left Wikipedia, it would be better for the project if I did. That said, when it comes to admin actions in the current environment - be careful overturning actions. Since 2005, you have protected exactly 8 articles. I have protected over a thousand, and much more recently (over the past two years). Climate in various Wiki arenas ebbs and flows, with interpretations of policies and guidelines changing as Wikipedia grows. In 2005, "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" was gospel. Now, not as much. Life here moves at about ten times the pace of the normal world, in terms of shifting priorities, consensuses, and overall texture. I'm not saying you can't go on your merry admin way - I'm saying be careful when you think another admin is wrong and you are right. However, that's probably enough rehashing; apology accepted, and I apologize for probably losing my temper. Tan | 3921:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I will take to heart your advice to be more careful. And I'm sorry that my unprotecting the article made you lose your temper. However you still have not convinced me that protecting the article wife selling is for the best, nor have you been able to show that Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection no longer represents consensus or standard practice. You may be right about that but I have nothing with which to substantiate that. Paul August☎21:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Paul. I´ve notice Python (mythology, computing language..etc) has many different meanings...Can anyone help me with desambiguation for this word? Tks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louansa (talk • contribs) 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, he was initially blocked for a while for making a legal threat against another editor. Then he returned under a new account, but he got banned under that because he was creating a battleground in particular areas. Since then, he's used a number of accounts to sock. That said, the accounts he's used to sock with have generally been to make fantastic content contributions (there's been a little trolling, but not too much). I think it's unlikely that he'll be coming back - I don't think he particularly wants to edit here, certainly not with restrictions against him and it's unlikely that the community would be wiling to unblock him without any firm restrictions in place. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Was there any reason to remove the students you removed other than the fact that they were redlinks? Several of the removals were very well-established mathematicians who should have an article on wiki, but simply don't. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just that they were red links (which tends to indicate non-notability). Feel free to add them back if you think they deserve their own article. Paul August☎02:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Paul, thanks for the correction on Uranus (mythology). I read the damn thing at least five times and I just didn't see it. Now I understand why the other editor put replaced the semicolon with a comma. Your parentheses make it clearer though. SQGibbon (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Some context: Bender235 has been going around large numbers of articles making this change via AWB. I noticed these edits when they overlapped with our math articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Paul, thanks for inquiring about the Wikipedia Campus Ambassador role! More details about the Campus Ambassador role can be found at http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Campus_Ambassador. Here is also a little bit more information; in a nutshell:
The Campus Ambassadors are crucial components of the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative. Volunteers in this position will be in charge of training and supporting the participating professors and students on Wikipedia-related skills, such as how to create new articles, how to add images, how the talk pages work, etc. Campus Ambassadors will also help recruit other people on campus to contribute to Wikipedia articles, for example by setting up Wikipedia-related student groups and by organizing "Welcome to Wikipedia" social events. In general they will become known as Wikipedia experts on the university campus (in your case, on the Harvard University campus). The estimated time commitment for this role is 3 to 5 hours a week, possibly slightly more at the very beginning and very end of the semester. The Wikimedia Foundation will hold a mandatory three-day training for all Campus Ambassadors in August, and will continue to stay in contact with and offer full support for the Campus Ambassadors throughout the academic semester.
If you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador at Harvard University, I would like to send you the application form. What email address can I send this to? (Feel free to email me this info if you prefer: alin@wikimedia.org).
Thanks. I look forward to hearing back from you soon!
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In metric systems it represents the point of reference or origin. That is "metric systems" (ie. numeric systems that measure something) not "the metric system" (ie. the European standards). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.153.37 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Metric Space is probably the more common term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.153.37 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, Paul, I know you watch Persephone and guard against some of the worst impulses there, but I was wondering whether you had any thoughts on why this article attracts such capricious editing, or what sort of approach or reorganization might help. This is such a key figure for the mystery religions that in writing my obscure little articles on ancient religion I often have occasion to link there, but I always do so with reluctance. Eros, as you know, is also a problem, and a pretty skimpy article at present. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid that, off the top of my head, I can't think of anything particularly useful to say about any of this. I will say that I've seemed to notice, over the last half-year or so, an increase in the number of low quality IP edits to many of our mythology articles (including the two you mention). Perhaps as a result of the Percy Jackson books and Clash of the Titans movie? But I'm sure you could do wonders for those two articles if you chose to be inspired (I might be willing to lend a hand) and it might be more fun and productive than fussing over some silly list of wars between democracies ;-) Paul August☎21:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but fussing there has taken eons off my time in Purgatory. I hope. IP editing and the Hollywood connection together — yep, that's a good perception. Also reminds me that I wouldn't like articles on major mythological figures to be so brainy that they immediately turn off smart 13-year-olds who become interested through Percy Jackson, either. Aiming articles at their most likely readers has struck me as one of the trickier things on WP. I'll keep these two articles in mind, but they're pretty peripheral to what I'm working on at the moment. Wish this were gainful employment; I could move mountains. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm very sorry about that. I have no memory of editing that article, and I don't know how this revert occurred. I was editing from my iPad at the time and I may have inadvertently touched the wrong part of the screen. Regards, Paul August☎12:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Paul, what makes you say that it's silly to specify that Venetus A was written in the 10th century AD? The Trojan war was in the 12th century BC, so it's certainly possible for someone to write about it in the 10th century BC. I myself was confused when I was reading about this topic. (Huey45 (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC))Reply
Dates without a date era are assumed to be in the present era (i.e. AD/CE). So no one reading "10th century" should be confused. Beyond that, Homer's Iliad, dated to around the 8th century BC, is widely known as one of the oldest works of Western literature. Few will suppose that a manuscript of the Illiad, called "Venetus A" (whose name refers to Venice, a city which didn't exist until around 400 AD) will have been written in the 10 century BC. Paul August☎11:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Not everyone who reads the encyclopaedia already knows this stuff though. Besides, adding "AD" to an old date is no detriment at all. It appears that you're opposing a helpful change either just because you're ganging up with User:Wetman or because you don't like writing "AD". Whatever it is, it's ridiculous. (Huey45 (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Paul, I know you watch Eros too, but I have no idea what's happened to that already dubious page. It's a disaster and I don't have time to do anything about it at the moment. You've been watching it longer than I, so perhaps the course of events will make quicker sense to you. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Have a great time! I was supposed to go to Rome in November, but the trip was canceled. Am now rerouting a quart of my unused supply of "will to pleasure" to you. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ooh, financial language. I'm now struck dumb, after my brave attempt to banish envy through good wishes. I just keep repeating "Rome will always be there, Rome will always be there." So it is pleasure and not a business trip? I was hitchhiking on a relative's business trip. Since I'm feeling a bit stir crazy at the moment, three weeks of travel sounds like heaven. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate in the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team (WP:CONTRIB for short)! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to WikiProject outreach, article improvement, donor relations, and more—in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks—whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you.
If this sounds interesting, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the team talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthalWikipedia Contribution Team22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
By the way, this is a human edit (not a bot). I'm specifically contacting you as you expressed interest in the Campus Ambassador position, and the Wikipedia Contributions Team has a lot of commonality in working along with the Campus Ambassadors. You can reach me on my talk page, or by email at drosenthal@wikimedia.org with questions; I can't guarantee that I'll be checking back on your talk page often enough to hold a sustained conversation there. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthalWikipedia Contribution Team22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD, EVERYONE, EVERY SINGLE PERSON knows that Orpheus was a Thracian, so why on earth, in the galaxy if you will, wont that be part of Thracian mythology as well. It sounds to me like you people are trying to cut all links of him with Thrace. Ive also seen a similar thing with Dionosys - saying it was Greek - thats just ridicolous,what next Spartacus will be greek as well?. If you want sources for this I am glad to post,well, like a million of them. I am going to revert it. Please dont be difficult in this please leave it there - I know my history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.1.98 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hello
Well basically its the sources that guy Jingiby posted on the talk page plus the one I posted in my last edit, where it says he was of thracian origin. I hope you can understand professionally at least why I am upset at the situation here. I have read a lot of history - it is a hobby of mine and I ,ove it, and in a lot of places I read he was a Thracian. Also, according to wikipedia neutrality rules - all "significant" viewpoints have to be mentioned in order for there to be no bias - by mentioning one viewpoint - that he was in only Greek mythology, is basically ignoring the rule and will confuse a lot of people, where, the first place they look for information, is wikipedia (especially if they are newcomers to Orpheus and the whole deal).
I am simply shocked and surprised that you guys are ignoring all the sources that the guy Jingiby put on the talk page,plus the one I put - I will try ti find many more when I have time. I just dont understand - whats wrong with those sources, why are you people ignoring a major viewpoint and only including one viewpoint (thus ignoring a rule) - that sounds a bit like POV at the least. All I am trying to do is make wikipedia a better place, and contributing to the greater knowledge in the world - I am just trying to help, but again now I see someone reverted my edits - it seems that this (most unfortunately - i.e: was uncalled for and unneeded) has become a problem now. I dont understand why there is so much fuss about including that he was also in Thracian mythology - logically if he was a Thracian, then he is automatically in Thracian mythology - doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Please bear with me on this and understand what I am trying to say, I mean no harm.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Alexander the Great is being reviewed for Good Article listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow for minor issues related to coverage and authorial tone to be addressed. Any assistance would be welcomed. SilkTork *YES!23:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I was VERY bold (as much to make a point and get some dialog going) and pasted in some still drawings in the lead. I hate to muck with a FA, but I'm sorry, IMHO that animation is worse than useless, it's so distracting I don't want to read the lead, plus it delivers no information (and apparently the information is wrong, or misleading per dialog just above my posting on the talk page. Anyway I saw you felt the same way back in 2009, just wanted to let you know I support your opinion. There's some really interesting math going on once a person realizes how the proof works, but you can't find it from that animation. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul, you reverted my Linear Algebra edit. I respect your opinion but I spent some time rewording the introduction and I would appreciate some feedback where you thought my editing was not clear. Personally I think the article could use a lot of improvement, and I've made a post on the talk page about this. Loadedsalt (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Since most of what I do here is copy editing, I'm particularly pleased to be directed to the style manual.
Surely I've mentioned to you that I was surprised to learn that I know two categorical topologists. Unless, of course, another of those cognitive lapses has occurred.
p.s. Glancing over some recent items here, I found myself asking: If Jesus was Jewish, does it follow that he is a figure in Jewish mythology? ;^) Michael (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
David Farris is completing a PhD at Berkeley, if memory serves. He is also a student of Urdu and an aficionado of Bollywood film and the culture(s) related to both. He has a presence amongst my friends at Facebook, where I understand you do not tread, on Live Journal, and perhaps other places. Ah, of course there's his page at Berkeley. I'd forgotten he'd been mayor of Cambridge. ;^) Please excuse me if I've got his field wrong. Remember, my class is the one that never quite made it to calculus. Best, Michael (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Heh. Phooey! I thought you might be inspired. Alas, I can only write for money these days. I'm sure someone will fill the gap. Best, Michael (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have it on my watchlist for the same reason that I slow down when passing a car wreck. It used to be a fairly sweet and neo-something kind of article that one might hope to plump up with some scholarship one day. It's now become a pathless wilderness (all trees, no forest). Not to mention the breathless syntax of the first paragraph. And the strange relation of spacing (or the lack thereof) to punctuation. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Syntax man to the rescue! Well, the first paragraph is readable now. The second looks like it could use some pruning, but that's probably a question beyond my expertise. Best to all, Michael (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
OK, learning that we have a Syntax Man has begun my day with a smile. I'm picturing the cloak and mask. And thanks, more readable now. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Nice of you all to have a conversation on my page while I was away ...
Hey, sorry about all the empty pizza boxes around the place. And the broken lamp. You really should get a lock for that liquor cabinet. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC
While the cat's away, the mice will play. Am I to assume your tongue is planted firmly in cheek in not writing "domus mea est domus tua"? Michael (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Paul's form is the genitive pronoun; both versions are technically correct, but your personal adjectives are less likely in a sentence with the main verb est, where I'd probably use a so-called 'dative of possession' and no verb for aphoristic effect: domus mihi, domus tibi. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
(On second thought I like pork better than squab.) I chose Latin (albeit pidgin) as a nod to Cynwolfe, perhaps I should have instead written ymay ousehay isway ouryay ousehay. Paul August☎18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
'Technically correct, I meant to say. Correct, they were both correct. Didn't have my contacts in this morning, geez, ended up sounding like a scold instead of playing along. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, I'm just an eejit. Or rather, it's as if some mutant neural pathway has formed in my brain, and I'm constantly inserting negatives where they don't go. (Some might consider this righteous retribution for my overly critical nature.) This is especially embarrassing in emails to my dearest family members and friends, where I'm likely to say things like "of course I don't love you." Cynwolfe (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ah, thanks, Cynwolfe! Yes, neither Paul's version nor mine sounded especially idiomatic; thanks for giving the thing the proper swing. Alas, I never developed a sense of style, ending my studies stumbling through Gaius Julius Junior's impedimenta in Gaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Michael Massing (talk • contribs) 07:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Paul and sorry for bothering you, but would you please chip in here, if you can? It's a point of procedure regarding Implementation notes on Noleander's arbcom case. Again, sorry for the intrusion and thanks. SalvioLet's talk about it!19:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you have the time, could you keep a watchful eye on Euclid? I just deleted renewed speculation, inserted as fact, that Euclid was of Egyptian origin. I've had very little time for Wikipedia in recent months. This is the first time I looked in on this article since December, so today's was just a lucky catch. Thank you.—Finell23:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Would you be able to provide a reference or proof of your claim that "a metric space is separable if and only if it is homeomorphic to a totally bounded metric space?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.28.144 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
So I made edits to the intro to the derivatives page and tried to make it much clearer for people just learning without removing any info. But you deleted the edits and said that they were incorrect, so I wanted to know why; I of course didn't see any flaws in my edits, and I certainly need to know if I have the concept of a derivative all wrong! haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan2718281828 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Evan. This is not Paul; but I was going to write you a note about your edits and I saw that you had posted here asking for clarification.
You wrote that "a derivative can be thought of as the rate of change in slope." This is not true. If you use the function to draw a graph, then the derivative is the closest thing there is to the slope of the graph at a point. The rate of change of the slope would be the second derivative. Furthermore, the interpretation as a slope is only one of many. If you interpret f as a function that takes time as an input and gives position as an output, then the derivative represents velocity (the idea of "slope of position with respect to time" doesn't make sense).
Two other things. First, we don't usually use asterisks for footnotes here on Wikipedia. The software has a built-in mechanism using <ref> tags. You can look at WP:NOTES if you're interested. Second, you referred to the increment h as a "random variable". But random variable has a jargon meaning in probability, so that's not a good word for h.
I hope you're not too disappointed about having your first edits reverted. I appreciate your eagerness to participate. It's always good to have new editors around! You might want to join the mathematics Wikiproject. We're based at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Most project discussion and organization happens at that page's talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I hope you'll consider joining! Ozob (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul - as you may be aware, there is currently an RFC related to the next Arbitration Committee election. A suggestion has been raised with respect to statistical information about arbitrators seeking re-election here. As I know you have been quite industrious in collecting this sort of information, perhaps you could comment? Risker (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sorry Doug, but I don't participate in, or know much about article assessment, nor do I happen to know much about the article's topic either, so I'm afraid I am not going to be much help here. But goof luck and keep up the good work. Paul August☎17:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Regarding your edit to Multiverse. The template has succeeded in discouraging people from changing "die" to "dice". In the context of this article, the die is analogous to a particle in quantum mechanics, it's important that it's a singular die, not dice plural. Would you please self-revert? Thanks.—Machine Elf 173522:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi Machine Elf. Yes, of course, "it's important that it is a singular die, not dice". And of course my edit maintains that distinction, in the natural way, i.e. writing "die", rather than the very confusing "{{dice}}", when the singular is wanted. In addition using "{{dice}}" generates a link, which can result in violations of WP:overlink. A third problem I have with this template is that it will, it seems to me, encourage the very ignorance that is the root of the problem. Also what, if any, is the evidence that using this template "has succeeded"? Paul August☎14:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Apparently, in parts of Britain, it's becoming more acceptable… I don't see how it could possibly “encourage the very ignorance that is the root of the problem”, even if ignorance were at the root. As you're concerned, anyone who's unfamiliar with the singular term would obviously benefit from the link (to which no one, in fact, objects). I suppose for those who would try to change it, any confusion upon seeing it already says "dice" on the edit page, is exactly what deters them.
In this case, I don't have a problem with exploiting an ignorance of templates. I've explained why it's being used, because in your edit summary, you said you didn't understand… I'm not going to argue pedantries with you, I find your assumptions less compelling than the hassle of regularly reverting it back to "die". Check the article history if you don't believe me—it completely stopped when I switched to the template.—Machine Elf 173517:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
We hold fast to the misusage in the US, as explained by Ambrose Bierce:
DIE, n. The singular of "dice." We seldom hear the word, because there is a prohibitory proverb, "Never say die."
Nice of you to say so! All is, as always, a tall order; well is reasonably accurate. Engaging more in questions of substance here, as I figure out the protocol. How's by you? (Respond where you like, I'm pretty visible.) Best, Michael (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
You Said ...
Hi Melcombe. I see that you have reverted two of my edits, eliminating the use of the template "{{dice}}". I'd like to understand your reasoning for these reverts. I have several concerns with regard to the use of this template: It is confusing to find "{{dice}}" instead of the natural "die" when the singular is wanted, it generates a link, which can result in violations of WP:OVERLINK, it will encourage, it seems to me, the very ignorance that is the root of the problem, and finally I don't see how it, in any way, avoids the problem of editors changing "die" to "dice" inappropriately. Regards, Paul August☎15:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, I didn't create the template ... I use it becaause it is there ... someone created it because it is/would be useful. Secondly, experience has shown that (across a number of articles in which it is used)it has reduced the number of times the grammar gets switched inappropriately, presumably because people either read the pop-up that appears on the article (which doesn't need a click-through) or else, when editing, spot the braces and realise that the spelling is intentional as it is not an ordinary wikilink. Melcombe (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I don't run that project, I just help with upkeep on things that don't seem to get taken care of. I have been doing so for several years. I never said I run it, just help run it. To keep it fresh and make sure there are new collaborations every now and then and check on other housekeeping things. But I have no problem with working with people that WANT to work together, but Cynwolfe has never shown that they can really do that to me. That is my opinion based on every encounter with the member starting with this[101] and then continuing on the Greek Love article where policy and guidelines have just been thrown out the door as well as several of us that are major contributors. Cynwolfe is not innocent in all this. They have ownership issues on both the Greek love article and The Project Greece and Rome talk page. Talking down and name calling are not just aimed at me. The member looking to find a way to raise Otium to a B rating got slammed and then when I came to the page to discuss it, it became an intellectual contest of text with one person claiming that the article could never be raised to a higher rating until experts on that subject contributed and then some even attacked that member's intelligence. And this all starts with Cynwolfe in my opinion. The Project talk page has always had a lot of people of varying knowledge but this person creates an uncomfortable atmosphere.
Do I owe them an apology? Quite possibly, but I didn't say anything to Cynwolfe that they didn't already say to me. Do I deserve an apology? Calling someone a bully is so easy, but their actions show that more than mine, especially over the course of months where they have created an atmosphere where some don't want to post on the pages they are on out of sheer aggravation.
You have kept your participation in this very simple. That has far more weight to me than those that ramble on about how great Cynwolfe is. But if anyone does something Cynwolfe doesn't like they become horrible and the latest discussion is just one example. So I'll say this, if what Cynwolfe said to me was fine and does not deserve an apology to me or the outrageous attack I took when I was notifying them of changes to an article and then continued to push me off that page....do you think my saying I am sorry is going to change much? I have no problem doing it. Apologies are important....I just wonder who really deserves one here. I need to mean it when I say it and getting some small amount from that member first would go a long way towards my meaning it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
You write that "quite possibly" you owe Cynwolfe an apology, that you "didn't say anything to Cynwolfe that they didn't already say to [you]", that in regards to being a bully that "their actions show that more than [yours]", all of which indicate to me that you are not proud of your behavor here. Regardless of how you think Cynwolfe has behaved, if you feel that you have behaved badly, an apology is called for. Paul August☎22:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
"Called for?" No. Appropriate, yes. Apologies are never called for or required, but in a civil world, regardless of the wrongs we feel we are subjected to....if one feels less than proud of behavior it is the usual step...one I do feel strongly about. It would be nice to see Cynwolfe take a different tact, but alas there is nothing to show that will be the outcome here. I will think about how to approach this further. I don't see pressure to make me apologize coming from you. What I see is your pointing out exactly why an apology would be something I would want to do. Having said that, it is more than likely I will extend it.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Paul August,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul. I wonder if you are still maintaining the statistics of arbitration proceedings, or if the data for 2012 is simply forthcoming. If you are still maintaining the page, then thank you for your hard work, and please don't consider this an impatient demand for new data. Regards, AGK[•]22:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Other activities have kept me from this task lately. The 2011 data is not quite complete, and though I still would like to finish that, I suspect I will not be maintaining any of this going forward. Others of course are welcome to continue to collect this data, but I detect little interest in this. Regards, Paul August☎12:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Good of you to fix all these incorrect links. But don't understand why you changed "Apollodorus" to be a redirect to "Apollodorus (disambiguation)" (from being a redirect to "Apollodorus of Athens" here. Presumably those articles are still looking for the Athenian, e.g. Anaximander, Epicurus, Hecate etc? Paul August☎19:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
A bunch of them definitely are, but an equal number are looking to other Apollodoruses on the dab page or to more minor figures not listed there. Some I couldn't even figure out, hence the redirect to the dab. I should have when I realized what the situation was also gone through and direct linked the certainly intended Apollodoruses of Athenses to his article; I'll do this presently. My main rationale for sending Apollodorus to Apollodorus (disambiguation) was to prevent further introductions of refs like Apollodorus 3.18.2, which is how the Bibliotheca is cited in many sources. Judging from the number of links that are certainly meant to go to Apollodorus of Athens vs. the total number of links that could go to any Apollodorus (incl. Ps.-Apld.), it seems that the 2nd c. Athenian isn't where the simple headword belongs. Let me know what you think. — cardiff | chestnut — 19:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree that ultimately "Apollodorus" ought to be the name of the dab page. Once we eliminate all the links to "Apollodorus", I can do the move. Paul August☎20:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. Do you mean all the links to "Apollodorus" the 2nd c. Athenian, or all the links to random Apollodoroi who are currently simply linked "Apollodorus"? I don't know that I'll be able to dab all of these. One more question: do links in Talk and User spaces need to be changed? Thanks — cardiff | chestnut — 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I moved "Apollodorus (disambiguation))" to "Apollodorus". I saw that you disambiguated several of the links to "Apollodorus", and I've now fixed (I hope) several myself. I need now (I see) look at links to Apollodorus (disambiguation). Paul August☎15:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for taking care of that. The Unknown God one and the Leleges–Carians Apld.'s have stymied me. There's a chance that the Unknown God ref might belong to Apld. of Athens' Περὶ θεῶν, but this might be through Philodemus, and I don't have Obbink's editon of On Piety and my TLG disk doesn't either. Good catch on Acestorides: I should have realized from the order of the list (Conon, Apollodorus ...) that it had to be the Bibliotheca. I've cleared out the rest of the links to "Apollodorus (disambiguation)", a few of which I actually introduced. Thanks again for talking care of this. As I was going through the erroneous Bibliotheca > Apld. of Athens links I noticed how often WP had made the Bibliotheca a work of the 2nd c. BC, with some even calling it the Chronicle, so the move was really needed just to slow down WP's returning public knowledge of the Bibl.'s authorship to the state it was in during the the Byzantine period. — cardiff | chestnut — 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. I spent a bit of time looking at the "Unknown God" mention to no avail. I also spent some time at "Leleges" as you may have noticed. I was able to add some linked cites for the bit about the Lelex connection, but I could find no mention in the Library for the supposed "Cretan legend". Anyway, the situation as you found it was an obvious mess, very much needing cleanup — all your hard work is very much appreciated. By the way, this ancient confusion can still be found I think in modern works. For example the Britannica article on "Apollodorus of Athens" which even though it says the Bibliotheca is not by him, still has him writing on "philology, geography, and mythology"). Paul August☎15:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I think both Apollodorus of Athens and the Bibliotheca need a good bulking up with recent scholarship to help make plain just what the situation is in the generally fuzzy topics of Hellenistic scholarship and Greek Mythography. Maybe someday ... — cardiff | chestnut — 16:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Your recent edits of the primary definition[s] of the absolute value function are problematic for three reasons. The first of which is that you are replacing a well source definition with one that does not have a source, the second is your failure to compromise by including the both definitions as they are equally signficant, and the third is that you seem to expect others to make discuss changes to the real argument definitions before they are changed, when you are not doing so yourself. I am going to revert your good faith edits for now, on the assumption that you will either provide a source for your definition, or start a talk page on the subject. Regards. KlappCK (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Let me put it this way: as the | two most prolific editors of this page, I believe it is against the spirit of Wikipedia for either of us take ownership of the page. The absolute value function's relationship to the sign function is significant and is not expressley stated elsewhere on the page. As both definitions have reputable sources, it is my belief as an inclusionist that we include both definitions. I am putting the definition back in again, as both definitions have there merits (the former for its simplicity and the latter for its ability to readily demonstrate that . This is the most pragmatic solution that I can percieve to be a compromise. If you are still flustered by the inclusion of this definition as one of two equally relavent real domain representations, then I believe your are right that we need to start a discussion on the talk page.KlappCK (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
in the article somewhere (the proper place would be in the section "Relationship to other functions" ) but I don't think it should be given as a definition. As I asked earlier can you point to any reliable source which uses this as the definition? Weisstein doesn't really count here as he is self published and idiosyncratic. Paul August☎18:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I suppose you can also find a nearly equivalent form (and several others) at Wolfram Alpha (as good a source as any, if you ask me). I wish there were a section of the absolute value in the handbook.KlappCK (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Paul August. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You reverted my request in Administrator's Noticeboard. Care to explain why you did so, and furthermore failed to notify me that you had done so? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I thought that might have been the case, esp. since you didn't notify me or edit summarize your reasoning for doing so. No worries. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi Gilderien. Thanks for asking me to collaborate. I may look at the article now and again, but I'm afraid I don't have much time at the moment to devote to Wikipedia. And if you check, you'll notice that my contributions to Area have been inconsequential. All the best, Paul August☎17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just to let you know, I deleted the section that an IP had deleted, a deletion which you reverted. I was going to make a dummy edit when I first saw the IP's edit noting that it was right, but was too lazy, so you were right to revert it since there was no edit summary. Other than the gods in that section, the names aren't Greek, just some fantasy fiction approximation of what Greek names would sound like. If the story has some basis in one of the lesser mythographers, I'll add an appropriate summary, but given the nature of the text as it stood I think it's best not to let it stand, since if it's some post-Jacobian Western European fantasy, which it kinduv smelled like, that much coverage would be undue anyway. davidiad.:01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs)23:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, just so you know for the future, it is a standard on Wikipedia that headings are written in sentence case, not title case, except where they reference a work, institution, etc. whose name would be written in title case. See WP:MSH. — Smjg (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes I'm aware of that. Don't know what happened at Ajax. I could have sworn that my edit there was to undo an IP who changed "fiction" to "Fiction". But that's not what the history shows, so this must be an early sign of dementia. Paul August☎22:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
On the Cyclopes page it was said that Euripides. Said nothing about Asclepius and the Cyclopes being brought back. Well I explained that it is not in the play. It comes from other writers. So I stated that. The information I put in is fact. So dont delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSleach (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi Dark Search, thanks for discussing your edit. And yes now your edit makes more sense. Unfortunately I think there are still some problems that I would like to discuss with you. I'd especially like to know the source for what you wrote. Paul August☎17:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My edit on Hesiod about Zeus defeating the Titans. With Poseidon and Hades. Is fact and I have to make it all about the Cyclopes. You dont own Wikipedia. Dont act like you own all the pages. I put nothing false in. reason was not good enough. I will take this up with Wikipedia. If you keep deleting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSleach (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi again ;-) Sorry you are upset. You are correct that Poseidon and Hades fought in the war with the Titans, but so did all the Olympian gods. I don't see why we need to mention Poseidon and Hades? Paul August☎20:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
You want to challenge what I said. Then read all my sources on theoi. You asked for it. I am going to give you every source. I read, read what I said slowly. Nothing I put in is false. Zeus returns Asclepius and the Cyclopes from Hades. What I put in about why Zeus returned Asclepius and the Cyclopes. Is what I read. My statement about Hades holding the dead prisoner in the underworld is true. Very few people go back into the world above. Read about Dionysus returning his mother from Hades. Read about Orpheus returning Eurydike. Why failed Hades didnt want to give her up. Also read about Hercules returning Alkestis from Hades. Also read about Hercules freeing Theseus. Read the story of Asclepius and why he died. As far as you deleting what I put in about Hades and Poseidon also defeating the titans with Zeus. That is a fact. You have no right to delete anything that is a fact. Like I said Wikipedia is a free domain. You dont make the rules. Your a vandal. Read what I said slowly. Have fun reading all my sources. If you want to challenge what I put in.
Orphic Hymn 18 to Pluton (trans. Taylor) (Greek hymns C3rd B.C. to 2nd A.D.) :
"To Plouton [Haides]. Plouton, magnanimous, whose realms profound are fixed beneath the firm and solid ground, in the Tartarean plains remote from sight, and wrapt for ever in the depths of night. Zeus Khthonios (of the Underworld), thy sacred ear incline, and pleased accept these sacred rites divine. Earth’s keys to thee, illustrious king, belong, its secret gates unlocking, deep and strong. ‘Tis thine abundant annual fruits to bear, for needy mortals are thy constant care. To thee, great king, all sovereign earth assigned, the seat of gods and basis of mankind. Thy throne is fixed in Haides’ dismal plains, distant, unknown to the rest, where darkness reigns; where, destitute of breath, pale spectres dwell, in endless, dire, inexorable hell; and in dread Akheron, whose depths obscure, earth’s stable roots eternally secure. O mighty Daimon, whose decision dread, the future fate determines of the dead, with Demeter’s girl [Persephone] captive, through grassy plains, drawn in a four-yoked car with loosened reins, rapt over the deep, impelled by love, you flew till Eleusinia’s city rose to view: there, in a wondrous cave obscure and deep, the sacred maid secure from search you keep, the cave of Atthis, whose wide gates display an entrance to the kingdoms void of day. Of works unseen and seen thy power alone to be the great dispending source is known. All-ruling, holy God, with glory bright, thee sacred poets and their hymns delight, propitious to thy mystics’ works incline, rejoicing come, for holy rites are thine."
PALACE OF HAIDES
"There, in front [at the ends of the earth], stand the echoing halls of the god of the lower-world, strong Hades, and of awful Persephone. A fearful hound guards the house in front ... keeps watch and devours whomsoever he catches going out of the gates of strong Hades and awful Persephone." - Hesiod, Theogony 767
"The shadowy place of the dead and passed the black gates which hold back the souls of the dead, for all their protestations." - Greek Elegaic Theognis, Frag 1.703
"The Stygian city and the cruel court of swarthy Dis [Haides]. Countless broad entrances that city has and portals everywhere open ... There the Umbrae (Shades) wander without flesh or blood or bones; some gather in the central square; some throng the courts of Tyrannus Imus (Hell’s King) [Haides]." - Ovid, Metamorphoses 4.437
"What of him who holds sway over the dark realm? Where sits he, governing his flitting tribes?
There is a place in dark recess of Tartarus [i.e. in Haides], which with a heavy pall dense mists enshroud. Hence flow from a single source two streams, unlike: one, a placid river (by this do the gods sear), with silent current bears on the sacred Styx; the other with mighty roar rushes fiercely on, rolling down rocks in its flood, Acheron, that cannot be recrossed. The royal hall of Dis [Haides] stands opposite, girt by a double moat, and the huge house is hid by an o’ershadowing grove. Here in a spacious cavern the tyrant’s doors overhang; this is the road for spirits, this is the kingdom’s gate. A plain lies round about this where sits the god, where with haughty mien his awful majesty assorts the new-arriving souls. Lowering is his brow, yet such as wears the aspect of his brothers and his high race; his countenance is that of Jove, but Jove the thunderer; chief part of that realm’s grimness is its own lord, whose aspect whate’er is dreaded dreads." - Seneca, Hercules Furens 707
"Beneath our pole [the earth] cut off from the things of the upper world, deep down lies the palace of the Tartarean Father [Haides]; never would it share the fate of the toppling sky, even if the mass were sent rolling ... wide-mouthed Chaos lies, so huge that it would swallow all matter, wearied with its own burden, and the falling universe. Here are the twin doors of the Shades below; one [the gate of Haides], by stern law ever open, receives nations and kinds ... by the left gate, how many monstrous creatures stand upon the threshold." - Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 1.830
"The lord of Erebus [Haides], enthroned in the midst of the fortress of his dolorous realm." - Statius, Thebaid 8.21
"Himself [lord Haides] I behold, all pale upon the throne, with Stygian Eumenides [Erinyes] ministering to his fell deeds about him, and the remorseless chambers and gloomy couch of Stygian Juno [Persephone]." - Statius, Thebaid 4.520
KEYS OF HAIDES
"Aiakos, even after death, is honoured in the company of Plouton [Haides], and has charge of the keys of Hades’ realm." - Apollodorus, The Library 3.159
"[Depicted on table made by Kolotes at Olympia] On the other are Plouton [Hades], Dionysos, Persephone and Nymphai ... As to the key (Plouton holds a key) they say that what is called Haides has been locked up by Plouton, and that nobody will return back again there from." - Pausanias, Guide to Greece 5.20.2-3
"Earth’s keys to thee, illustrious king [Haides], belong, its secret gates unlocking, deep and strong." - Orphic Hymn 18 to Pluton
HAIDES ATTENDANTS: ROYAL COURT
Haides was enthroned in Erebos surrounded by a court consisting of the three Judges of the Dead, the Erinyes (Chthonian Vengeance Demons), the Moirai (Fates), the Keres (Death-Demons) and Thanatos (Death), as well as the personified underworld Rivers.
"The lord of Erebus [Haides], enthroned in the midst of the fortress of his dolorous realm, was demanding of his subjects the misdoings of their lives, pitying nought human but wroth against all the Manes (Shades). Around him stand the Furiae [Erinyes] and various Mortes (Deaths) [Thanatoi or Keres] in order due, and savage Poena (Vengeance) thrusts forth her coils of jangling chains; the Fatae (Fates) [Moirai] bring the Animas (Souls) and with one gesture [literally “thumb” as in the amphitheatre] damn them; too heavy grows the work. Hard by, Minos with his dread brother [Rhadamanthys] in kindly mood counsels a milder justice, and restrains the bloodthirsty king; Cocytus and Phelgethon, swollen with tears and fire, aid in the judgement, and Styx accuses the gods of perjury." - Statius, Thebaid 8.21
"Himself [lord Haides] I behold, all pale upon the throne, with Stygian Eumenides [Erinyes] ministering to his fell deeds about him, and the remorseless chambers and gloomy couch of Stygian Juno [Persephone]. Black Mors [Thanatos god of death] sits upon an eminence, and numbers the silent peoples for their lord; yet the greater part of the troop remains. The Gortynian judge [Minos] shakes them [the ghosts of the dead] in his inexorable urn, demanding the truth with threats, and constrains them to speak out their whole lives’ story and at last confess their extorted gains." - Statius, Thebaid 4.520
HADES & THE HERO ORPHEUS
When Orpheus came to the underworld seeking the return of his dead love Eurydike, Haides and Persephone were moved by his pleas and agreed to let her return.
Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 1. 14 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.) :
"When his [Orpheus'] wife Eurydike died from a snake-bite, Orpheus descended into Haides’ realm with the desire to bring her back up to earth, and persuade Plouton [Hades] to release her. Plouton promised to do this if on the return trip Orpheus would not turn round before reaching his own home. But he disobeyed, and turned to look at his wife, who thereupon went back down again."
Pseudo-Hyginus, Astronomica 2. 7 (trans. Grant) (Roman mythographer C2nd A.D.) :
"Orpheus . . . was passionately devoted to music. It is thought that by his skill he could charm even wild beasts to listen. When, grieving for his wife Eurydice, he descended to the Lower World, he praised the children of the gods in his song."
Ovid, Metamorphoses 10. 8 ff (trans. Melville) (Roman epic C1st B.C. to C1st A.D.) :
"The new-wed bride [Eurydike, wife of Orpheus] . . . fell dying when a serpent struck her heel. And when at last the bard Rhodopeius [Orpheus] had mourned his fill in the wide world above, he dared descend through Taenaria’s dark gate to Styx to make trial of the Umbrae (Shades); and through the thronging wraiths and grave-spent ghosts he came to pale Persephone and him, Dominus Umbrarum (Lord of the Shades) [Haides], who rules the unlovely realm, and as he struck his lyre’s sad chords he said : `Ye deities who rule the world below, whither we mortal creatures all return, if simple truth, direct and genuine, may by your leave be told, I have come down not with intent to see the glooms of Tartara, nor to enchain the triple-snaked necks of Medusaeum [Kerberos], but for my dear wife’s sake, in whom a trodden viper poured his venom and stole her budding years. My heart has sought strength to endure; the attempt I’ll not deny; but love has won, a god whose fame is fair in the world above; but here I doubt, though here too, I surmise; and if that ancient tale of ravishment is true, you too were joined in love. Now by these regions filled with fear, by this huge Chaos, these vast silent realms, reweave, I implore, the fate unwound too fast of my Eurydice. To you are owed ourselves and all creation; a brief while we linger; then we hasten, late or soon to one abode; here on road leads us all; here in the end is home; over humankind your kingdom keeps the longest sovereignty. She too, when ripening years reach their due term, shall own your rule. The favour that I ask is but to enjoy her love; and, if fate will not reprieve her, my resolve is clear not to return: may two deaths give you cheer.’ So to the music of his strings he [Orpheus] sang, and all the bloodless spirits wept to hear; and Tantalus forgot the fleeing water, Ixion’s wheel was tranced; the Belides [Danaides] laid down their urns; the vultures left their feast, and Sisyphus sat rapt upon his stone. Then first by that sad ringing overwhelmed, the Eumenides’ [Erinyes’] cheeks, it’s said, were wet with tears; and the queen [Persephone] and he whose sceptre rules the underworld could not deny the prayer, and called Eurydice. She was among the recent ghosts and, limping from her wound, came slowly forth; and Rhodopeius [Orpheus] took his bride and with her this compact that, till he reach the world above and leave Valles Avernae [Valleys of Hell], he look not back or else the gift would fail. The track climbed upwards, steep and indistinct, through the hushed silence and the murky gloom; and now they neared the edge of the bright world, and, fearing lest she faint, longing to look, he turned his eyes--and straight she slipped away. He stretched his arms to hold her--to be held--and clasped, poor soul, naught but the yielding air. And she, dying again, made no complaint (for what complaint had she save she was loved?) and breathed a faint farewell, and turned again back to the land of spirits whence she came. The double death of his Eurydice stole Orpheus‘ wits away . . . He longed, he begged, in vain to be allowed to cross the stream of Styx a second time. The ferryman [Kharon] repulsed him. Even so for seven days he sat upon the bank, unkempt and fasting, anguish, grief and tears his nourishment, and cursed Erebus’ cruelty."
Seneca, Hercules Furens 569 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st A.D.) :
"Orpheus had power to bend the ruthless lords of the shades [Haides and Persephone] by song and suppliant prayer, when he sought back his Eurydice. The art which had drawn the trees and birds and rocks, which had stayed the course of rivers, at whose sound the beasts had stopped to listen, soothes the underworld with unaccustomed strains, and rings out clearer in those unhearing realms. Eurydice the Thracian brides bewail; even the gods, whom no tears can move, bewail her; and they [the Erinyes] who with awful brows investigate men’s crimes and sift out ancient wrongs, as they sit in judgment bewail Eurydice. At length death’s lord [Haides] exclaims : `We own defeat; go forth to the upper world, yet by this appointed doom--fare thou as comrade behind thy husband, and thou, look not back upon thy wife until bright day shall have revealed the gods of heaven, and the opening of Spartan Taenarus shall be at hand.' True love hates delay and brooks it not; while he hastes to look upon his prize, ‘tis lost. The realm which could be overcome by song, that realm shall strength have power to overcome."
Statius, Thebaid 8. 21 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"Must I [Haides] so oft endure the profanation of Chaos by living strangers? . . . It shames me too, alas! how Tartarus opened a way to the Odyrsian plaint [Orpheus]; with my own eyes I saw the Eumenides [Erinyes] shed base tears at those persuasive strains, and the Sisters [the Moirai or Fates] repeat their allotted task; me too--, but the violence of my cruel law was stronger."
II) HERAKLES & ALKESTIS
Herakles was sometimes described as battling Haides for the life of Queen Alkestis, who had agreed to die in place of her husband Admetos.
Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 1. 106 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.) :
"[Apollon] obtained from the Moirai (Fates) a privilege for [King] Admetos, whereby, when it was time for him to die, he would be released from death if someone should volunteer to die in his place. When his day to die came . . . [his wife] Alkestis died for him. Kore [Persephone], however sent her back, or, according to some, Herakles battled Haides and brought her back up to Admetos."
HADES WRATH : PIRITHOUS & THESEUS
The hero Peirithoos sought to abduct Persephone, the bride of Haides. As punishment the god trapped him on a stone chair and eternal torment. Theseus, who accompanied him on the expedition, was freed at the request of Herakles.
Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca E1. 23 - 24 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.) :
"Theseus and Peirithoos agreed with each other to marry daughters of Zeus, so Theseus with the other’s help kidnapped twelve-year-old Helene from Sparta, and went down to Haides’ realm to court Persephone for Peirithoos . . . Theseus, arriving in Haides’ realm with Peirithoos, was thoroughly deceived, for Haides on the pretense of hospitality had them sit first upon the throne of Lethe (Forgetfulness). Their bodies grew onto it, and were held down by the serpent’s coils. Now Peirithous remained fast there for all time, but Herakles led Theseus back up."
Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2. 124 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.) :
"As he [Herakles] approached the gates of Haides’ realm [in his quest to fetch Kerberos], he came across Theseus along with Peirithoos, who had courted Persephone with matrimonial intentions and for this reason was held fast as was Theseus. When they saw Herakles they stretched forth their hands as if to rise up with the help of his strength. He did in fact pull Theseus up by the hand, but when he wanted to raise Peirithoos, the earth shook and he let go."
Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 4. 63. 4 (trans. Oldfather) (Greek historian C1st B.C.) :
"Peirithoos [after helping Theseus abduct Helene] now decided to seek the hand of Persephone in marriage, and when he asked Theseus to make the journey with him Theseus at first endeavoured to dissuade him and to turn him away from such a deed as being impious; but since Peirithoos firmly insisted upon it Theseus was bound by the oaths to join with him in the deed. And when they had at last made their way below to the regions of Haides, it came to pass that because of the impiety of their act they were both put in chains, and although Theseus was later let go by reason of the favour with which Herakles regarded him, Peirithoos because of the impiety remained in Haides, enduring everlasting punishment; but some writers of myths say that both of them never returned."
Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 4. 26. 1 :
"Herakles then, according to the myths which have come down to us, descended into the realm of Haides, and being welcomed like a brother by Persephone brought Theseus and Peirithoos back to the upper world after freeing them from their bonds. This he accomplished by the favour of Persephone, and receiving the dog Kerberos in chains he carried him away to the amazement of all and exhibited him to men."
Plutarch, Life of Theseus 31.2 & 35. 1 (trans. Perrin) (Greek historian C1st to C2nd A.D.) :
"[Theseus] to return the service of Peirithoos, [who helped him abduct Helene] journeyed with him to Epiros, in quest of the daughter of Aidoneus the king of the Molossians. This man called his wife Phersephone, his daughter Kora, and his dog Kerberos, with which beast he ordered that all suitors of his daughter should fight, promising her to him that should overcome it. However, when he learned that Peirithoos and his friend were come not to woo, but to steal away his daughter, he seized them both. Peirithoos he put out of the way at once by means of the dog, but Theseus he kept in close confinement . . .
Now while Herakles was the guest of Aidoneus the Molossian, the king incidentally spoke of the adventure of Theseus and Peirithoos, telling what they had come there to do, and what they had suffered when they were found out. Herakles was greatly distressed by the inglorious death of the one, and by the impending death of the other. As for Peirithoos, he thought it useless to complain, but he begged for the release of Theseus, and demanded that this favour be granted him. Aidoneus yielded to his prayers, Theseus was set free, and returned to Athens, where his friends were not yet altogether overwhelmed."
Aelian, Historical Miscellany 4. 5 (trans. Wilson) (Greek rhetorician C2nd to 3rd A.D.) :
"Benefits were remembered, and thanks for them given, by Theseus to Herakles. Aïdoneus king of the Molossians put Theseus in chains when he came with Pirithous to kidnap the king’s wife [i.e. Persephone]. Theseus did not want to marry the woman himself but did this as a favour to Pirithous. Herakles came to the country of the Molossians and rescued Theseus, in return for which the latter set up an altar to him."
Pseudo-Hyginus, Fabulae 79 (trans. Grant) (Roman mythographer C2nd A.D.) :
"When Jove [Zeus] saw that they [Theseus & Peirithous] had such audacity [kidnapping Helene] as to expose themselves to danger, he bade them in a dream both go and ask Pluto on Pirithous’ part for Proserpina [Persephone] in marriage. When they had descended to the Land of the Dead through the peninsula Taenarus, and had informed Pluto [Haides] why they had come, they were stretched out and tortured for a long time by the Furies. When Hercules came to lead out the three-headed dog, they begged his promise of protection. He obtained the favor from Pluto, and brought them out unharmed."
Ovid, Heroides 2. 67 ff (trans. Showerman) (Roman poetry C1st B.C. to C1st A.D.) :
"With record of his [Theseus'] deeds. When men shall have read of . . . the knocking at the gloomy palace of the darksome god."
Seneca, Phaedra 93 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st A.D.) :
"Through the deep shades of the pool which none recrosses is he [Theseus] faring, this brave recruit of a madcap suitor [Peirithoos], that from the very throne of the infernal king [Haides] he may rob and bear away his wife [Persephone]. He hurries on, a partner in mad folly; him nor fear nor shame held back. And there in the depths of Acherontis [i.e. the underworld] he seeks adultery and an unlawful bed."
Seneca, Phaedra 147 ff :
"Suppose that Theseus is indeed held fast [in the underworld], hidden away in Lethean depths, and must suffer Stygia [i.e. the underworld] eternally."
Seneca, Phaedra 222 ff :
"Trust not in Dis [Haides]. Though he bar his realm, and though the Stygian dog [Kerberos] keep guard o’er the grim doors, Theseus alone finds out forbidden ways."
Seneca, Phaedra 625 ff :
"The overlord of the fast-holding realm and of the silent Styx has made no way to the upper world once quitted; and will he let the robber [Theseus] of his couch go back? Unless, perchance, even Pluton sits smiling upon love!"
Seneca, Phaedra 951 :
"[Theseus was] in depths of Tartarus, in presence of dread Dis [Haides], and imminent menace of hell’s lord."
Seneca, Phaedra 1149 ff :
"Theseus looks on sky and upper world and has escaped from the pools of Stygia, chaste one, thou owest naught to thine uncle, the all-devouring; unchanged the tale remains for the infernal king [i.e. he keeps his bride]."
Seneca, Phaedra 1217 ff :
"[Theseus returned from the underworld laments his unhappy lot :] `Alcides, give back his boon to Dis [Haides]; give me up again to the ghosts whom I escaped. Impiously, I make vain prayers for the death I left behind.; "
Statius, Thebaid 8. 21 (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"Must I [Haides] so oft endure the profanation of Chaos by living strangers? The rash ardour of Pirithous provoked me, and Theseus, sworn comrade of his daring friend [when the pair attempted to abduct Persephone]."
HADES WRATH : ASCLEPIUS
Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 4. 71. 3 (trans. Oldfather) (Greek historian C1st B.C.) :
"It was believed that he [Asklepios] had brought back to life many who had died. Consequently, the myth goes on to say, Haides brought accusation against Asklepios, charging him before Zeus of acting to the detriment of his own province, for, he said, the number of the dead was steadily diminishing, now that men were being healed by Asklepios. So Zeus, in indignation, slew Asklepios with his thunderbolt."
Aesop, Fables 133 (from Chambry & Babrius, Fabulae Aesopeae 75) (trans. Gibbs) (Greek fable C6th B.C.) :
"[This fable by Aesop contains an allusion to the story of Asklepios :] There was once a doctor who knew nothing about medicine. One of his patients was feeling quite weak, but everyone insisted, 'Don't give up, you will get well; your illness is the sort that lasts for a while, but then you will feel better.' The doctor, however, marched in and declared : `I'm not going to play games with you or tell you lies: you need to take care of all your affairs, because you are going to die; you are not going to last more than another day.' Having said this, the doctor did not even bother to come back again. After a while the patient recovered from his illness and was venturing out of doors, although he was not yet fully steady on his feet. When the doctor ran into the patient, he greeted him, and asked how all the people down in Haides were doing. The patient said, `They are taking it easy, drinking the water of Lethe. But Persephone and the mighty god Plouton [Haides] were just now threatening terrible things against all the doctors, since they keep the sick people from dying. Every single doctor was denounced, and they were ready to put you at the top of the list. This scared me, so I immediately stepped forward and grasped their royal sceptres as I solemnly swore that this was simply a ridiculous accusation, since you are not really a doctor at all."
Homer, Iliad and Odyssey (Greek epic C8th B.C.) :
References to Haides in the Iliad and Odyssey, which mostly describe passage to the underworld, can be found on the Realm of Haides I page.
Hesiod, Theogony 453 ff (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek epic C8th or 7th B.C.) :
"Haides, pitiless in heart, who dwells under the earth."
Theognis, Fragment 1. 244 ff (trans. Gerber, Vol. Greek Elegiac) (Greek elegy C6th B.C.) :
"When you go to Aides’ house of wailing, down in the dark earth’s depths."
Anacreon, Frag 405 (from Scholiast on Hesiod) (trans. Campbell, Vol. Greek Lyric II) (C6th B.C.) :
"Theos Khthonios [i.e. Haides] may mean god of the lower world or sullen god."
Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1372 ff (trans. Weir Smyth) (Greek tragedy C5th B.C.) :
"Klytaimestra [describes how she murdered Agamemnon] : Twice I struck him, and with two groans his limbs relaxed. Once he had fallen, I dealt him yet a third stroke to grace my prayer to the infernal (khthonios) Zeus, the savior of the dead (nekrôn sôtêr). Fallen thus, he gasped away his life."
Aeschylus, Eumenides 273 ff :
"For Haides is mighty in holding mortals to account under the earth, and he observes all things and within his mind inscribes them."
Aeschylus, Libation Bearers 355 ff :
"A ruler of august majesty [King Agamemnon], distinguished even beneath the earth, and minister of the mightiest, the deities who rule in the nether world [Haides and Persephone]. For in your life you were a king of those who have the power to assign the portion of death [i.e. a king has the power of death over his subjects], and who wield the staff all mortals obey."
Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound 153 ff :
"Haides, the entertainer of the dead (nekrodegmôn)."
Aeschylus, Suppliant Women 227 ff :
"And how can man be pure who would seize from an unwilling father an unwilling bride? For such an act, not even in Haides, after death, shall he escape arraignment for outrage. There also among the dead, so men tell, another Zeus [Haides] holds a last judgment upon misdeeds. Take heed and reply in this manner, that victory may attend your cause."
Aeschylus, Doubtul Fragment 243 (from Hesychius, Lexicon s.v. empedês) :
"May Haides, whose portion is the earth, seize and fetter thee!"
Aesop, Fables 133 (Chambry 133 & Babrius, Fabulae Aesopeae 75) (trans. Gibbs) (Greek fable C6th B.C.) :
"[A fable told in jest :] Persephone and the mighty god Plouton [Haides] were just now threatening terrible things against all the doctors, since they keep the sick people from dying."
Plato, Cratylus 400d & 402d - 404b (trans. Fowler) (Greek philosopher C4th B.C.) :
"[Plato constructs philosophical etymologies for the names of the gods :] Sokrates : Let us inquire what thought men had in giving them [the gods] their names . . . The first men who gave names [to the gods] were no ordinary persons, but high thinkers and great talkers . . . Let us, then, speak of his [Zeus] brothers, Poseidon and Plouton, including also the other name of the latter . . . Plouton, he was so named as the giver of wealth (ploutos), because wealth comes up from below out of the earth. And Haides--I fancy most people think that this is a name of the Invisible (aeidês), so they are afraid and call him Plouton. I think people have many false notions about the power of this god, and are unduly afraid of him. They are afraid because when we are once dead we remain in his realm for ever, and they are also terrified because the soul goes to him without the covering of the body. But I think all these facts, and the office and the name of the god, point in the same direction . . . Please answer this question : Which is the stronger bond upon any living being to keep him in any one place, desire, or compulsion?
Hermogenes : Desire, Socrates, is much stronger.
Sokrates : Then do you not believe there would be many fugitives from Haides, if he did not bind with the strongest bond those who go to him there? . . . Apparently, then, if he binds them with the strongest bond, he binds them by some kind of desire, not by compulsion . . . There are many desires, are there not? . . . Then he binds with the desire which is the strongest of all, if he is to restrain them with the strongest bond ... And is there any desire stronger than the thought of being made a better man by association with some one? . . . Then, Hermogenes, we must believe that this is the reason why no one has been willing to come away from that other world, not even the Seirenes, but they and all others have been overcome by his enchantments, so beautiful, as it appears, are the words which Haides has the power to speak; and from this point of view this god is a perfect sophist and a great benefactor of those in his realm, he who also bestows such great blessings upon us who are on earth; such abundance surrounds him there below, and for this reason he is called Plouton. Then, too, he refuses to consort with men while they have bodies, but only accepts their society when the soul is pure of all the evils and desires of the body. Do you not think this shows him to be a philosopher and to understand perfectly that under these conditions he could restrain them by binding them with the desire of virtue, but that so long as they are infected with the unrest and madness of the body, not even his father Kronos could hold them to himself, though he bound them with his famous chains? . . . And the name 'Haides' is not in the least derived from the invisible (aeides), but far more probably from knowing (eidenai) all noble things, and for that reason he was called Haides by the lawgiver."
Callimachus, Epigrams 2 (trans. Mair) (Greek poet C3rd B.C.) :
"Haides, snatcher of all things, shall lay his hand [upon you]."
Callimachus, Fragment Frag 478 (from Etymologicum Florentine s.v. Klymenos) (trans. Trypanis) (Greek poet C3rd B.C.) :
"[Persephone] the spouse of Klymenos [Haides], host of many (polyzeinos)."
Pausanias, Description of Greece 5. 20. 2 (trans. Jones) (Greek travelogue C2nd A.D.) :
"[Amongst the scenes depicted on a table by Kolotes dedicated in the temple of Hera at Olympia :] Plouton [Haides] holds a key, they say that what is called Haides has been locked up by Plouton, and that nobody will return back again there from."
Ovid, Metamorphoses 2. 260 ff (trans. Melville) (Roman epic C1st B.C. to C1st A.D.) :
"Earth everywhere splits deep [when Phaethon scorches the earth] and light strikes down into Tartara (the Underworld) and fills with fear Rex Infernus (Hell’s monarch) [Haides] and his consort [Persephone]."
Ovid, Metamorphoses 5. 354 ff :
"The land [of Sicily] quakes [as Typhoeus the Giant buried beneath it tries to escape] and even the king who rules the land of silence (Rex Silentum) [Haides] shudders lest the ground in gaping seams should open and the day stream down and terrify the trembling Umpire (Shades). The tyrant (Tyrannus) had left his dark domains to and fro, drawn in his chariot and sable steeds, inspected the foundations of the isle."
Seneca, Hercules Furens 603 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st A.D.) :
"I [Herakles] have seen places unapproached by any . . . those gloomy spaces which the baser pole hath yielded to infernal Jove [Haides]; and if the regions of the third estate pleased me, I might have reigned."
Seneca, Hercules Furens 658 ff :
"All the world’s holy powers, and thou [Haides] who rulest the all-holding realm, and thou [Persephone] whom, stolen from Enna, thy mother [Demeter] sought in vain, may it be right, I pray, boldly to speak of powers hidden away and buried beneath the earth."
Seneca, Hercules Furens 707 ff :
"What of him who holds sway over the dark realm? Where sits he, governing his flitting tribes? . . . A plain lies round about this where sits the god [Haides], where with haughty mien his awful majesty assorts the new-arriving souls. Lowering is his brow, yet such as wears the aspect of his brothers and his high race; his countenance is that of Jove, but Jove the thunderer; chief part of that realm’s grimness is its own lord, whose aspect whate’er is dreaded dreads."
Seneca, Phaedra 625 ff :
"The overlord [Haides] of the fast-holding realm and of the silent Styx has made no way to the upper world once quitted."
Seneca, Troades 402 ff :
"Taenarus and the cruel tyrant’s [Haides] kingdom and Cerberus, guarding the portal of no easy passage."
Statius, Thebaid 4. 520 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"Himself [lord Haides] I behold, all pale upon the throne, with Stygian Eumenides [Erinyes] ministering to his fell deeds about him, and the remorseless chambers and gloomy couch of Stygian Juno [Persephone]. Black Mors [Thanatos, death] sits upon an eminence, and numbers the silent peoples for their lord; yet the greater part of the troop remains. The Gortynian judge [Minos] shakes them [the ghosts of the dead] in his inexorable urn, demanding the truth with threats, and constrains them to speak out their whole lives’ story and at last confess their extorted gains."
Statius, Thebaid 8. 21 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"The lord of Erebus [Haides], enthroned in the midst of the fortress of his dolorous realm, was demanding of his subjects the misdoings of their lives, pitying nought human but wroth against all the Manes (Shades). Around him stand the Furiae [Erinyes, furies] and various Mortes [Thanatoi, deaths] in order due, and savage Poena (Vengeance) thrusts forth her coils of jangling chains; the Fatae [Moirai, fates] bring the Animas (Souls) and with one gesture [literally “thumb” as in the amphitheatre] damn them; too heavy grows the work. Hard by, Minos with his dread brother [Rhadamanthys] in kindly mood counsels a milder justice, and restrains the bloodthirsty king; Cocytus and Phelgethon, swollen with tears and fire, aid in the judgement, and Styx accuses the gods of perjury. But he [Haides], when the frame of the world above was loosened [i.e. when the earth opened up and swallowed the hero Amphiaraus] and filled him with unwonted fears, quaked at the appearing stars, and thus did he speak, offended by the gladsome light: ‘What ruin of the upper world hath thrust the hateful light of day into Avernus? Who hath burst our gloom and told the silent folk of life? Whence comes this threat? Which of my brothers makes war on me? Well, I will meet him: confusion whelm all natural bounds? For whom would that please more? The third hazard hurled me defeated from the mighty heaven, and I guard the world of guilt; nor is even that mine, but lo! the dread stars search it from end to end, and gaze upon me. Does the proud ruler of Olympus spy out my strength? Mine is the prison-house, now broken, of the Gigantes, and of the Titanes, eager to force their way to the world above, and his own unhappy sire [Kronos] : why thus cruelly doth he forbid me to enjoy my mournful leisure and this untranquil peace, and to hate the light I lost? I will open all my kingdoms, if such by my pleasure, and veil Hyperion [Helios the sun] with a Stygian sky. I will not send the Arcadian [Hermes] up to the gods--why doth he come and go on errands between realm and realm?--and I will keep both the sons of Tyndareus [i.e. the Dioskouroi who divided their days equally between Olympos and the Underworld]. And why do I break Ixion on the greedy whirling of the wheel? Why do the waters not wait for Tantalus? Must I so oft endure the profanation of Chaos by living strangers? The rash ardour of Pirithous provoked me, and Theseus, sworn comrade of his daring friend [the pair attempted to abduct Persephone], and fierce Alcides [Herakles], when the iron threshold of Cerberus’ gate fell silent, its guardian removed. It shames me too, alas! how Tartarus opened a way to the Odyrsian plaint [Orpheus]; with my own eyes I saw the Eumenides [Erinyes] shed base tears at those persuasive strains, and the Sisters [Moirai, fates] repeat their allotted task; me too -, but the violence of my cruel law was stronger. Yet I have scarce ventured one stolen journey, nor was that to the stars on high, when I carried of my bride [Persephone] from the Sicilian mead: unlawfully, so they say, and forthwith comes an unjust decree from Jove [Zeus], and her mother [Demeter] cheats me of half a year. But why do I tell all this: Go, Tisiphone, avenge the abode of Tartarus! if ever thou hast wrought monsters fierce and strange, bring forth some ghastly horror, huge and unwonted, such as the sky hath never yet beheld, such as I may marvel at and thy Sisters [the Moirai] envy. Ay, and the brothers [Polyneikes and Eteokles] rush to slay each other in exultant combat; let there be one [Tydeus] who in hideous, bestial savagery shall gnaw his foeman’s head, and one [king Kreon] who shall bar the dead from the funeral fire and pollute the air with naked corpses; let the fierce Thunderer [Zeus] feast his eyes on that! Moreover, lest their fury harm my realms alone, seek one who shall make war against he gods [Kapaneus] and with smoking shield repel the fiery brand and Jove’s [Zeus’] own wrath. I will have all men fear to disturb black Tartarus no less than to set Pelion on top of leafy Ossa.’ He finished, and long since was the gloomy palace quaking at his words, and his own land and that which presses on it from above were rocking: no more mightily does Jupiter [Zeus] sway the heaven with his nod, and bow the starry poles. But what shall be thy [Amphiaraus’] doom,’ he cries, `who rushest headlong through the empty realm on a path forbidden?’
As he threatens, the other draws nigh, on foot now and shadowy to view, his armour growing faint, yet in his lifeless face abides the dignity of augurship inviolate, and on his brow remains the fillet dim to behold, and in his hand is a branch of dying olive. `If it be lawful and right for holy Manes (Shades) to make utterence here, O thou to all men the great Finisher, but to me, who once knew causes and beginnings, Creator also! remit, I pray, thy threatenings and thy fevered heart, nor deem worthy of thy wrath one who is but a man and fears thy laws; ‘tis for no Herculean plunder--such wars are not for me--, nor for a forbidden bride--believe these emblems--that I dare to enter Lethe: let not Cerberus flee into his cave, nor Proserpine [Persephone] shudder at my chariot. I, once the best beloved of augurs at Apollo’s shrines, call empty Chaos to bear witness--for what power to receive an oath has Apollo here?--for no crime do I suffer this unwonted fate, nor have I deserved to be thus torn from the kindly light of day; the urn of the Dictean judge doth know it, and Minos can discern the truth. Sold by the treachery of my wife [Eriphyle] for wicked gold, I joined the Argive host, not unwitting - hence this crowd of new-slain ghosts thou seest, and the victims also of this right hand; in a sudden convulsion of the earth--my mind still shrinks in horror--thy darkness swallowed me up from the midst of thousands . . . content am I to receive my Shade [Amphiaraus was not yet dead but dropped alive into Haides], nor remember my tripods any more. For what avails thee the use of prescient augury, when the Parcae [Moirai, fates] spin thy commands? Nay, be thou softened, and prove more merciful than the gods. If ever my accursed wife come hither, reserve for her thy deadly torments : she is more worthy of thy wrath, O righteous lord!’ He [Haides] accepts his prayer, and is indignant that he yields."
Statius, Thebaid 11. 410 ff :
"Thrice from the regions of doom thundered their [the Erinyes'] impatient monarch [Haides], and shook the depths of the earth [at the commencement of the War of Thebes] . . . The king of Tartarus [Haides] himself orders the gates to be set open [i.e. to receive the legions of the slain]."
Statius, Thebaid 11. 444 ff :
"The Warden of the Larvae (Shades) [lord Haides] and the third heir of the world, after the lot’s unkind apportioning, leapt down from his chariot and grew pale, for he was come to Tartarus and heaven was lost for ever."
Statius, Silvae 3. 3. 21 (trans. Mozley) (Roman poetry C1st A.D.) :
"Let him [the shade of a father] come, and approach the awful throne of the silent monarch [Haides] and pay his last due of gratitude and anxiously request for his son a long life."
Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 3. 380 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"Celaeneus [the Black, Haides], sitting sable-shrouded and sword in hand, cleanses the innocent from their error."
Apuleius, The Golden Ass 7. 24 ff (trans. Walsh) (Roman novel C2nd A.D.) :
"I was pulled out of the hands of Orcus [Haides] [that is, saved from death]."
Tryphiodorus, The Taking of Ilias 568 ff (trans. Mair) (Greek poet C5th A.D.) :
"And Haides shuddered [at the slaughter of the Sack of Troy] and looked forth from his seat under earth, afraid lest in the great anger of Zeus Hermes, conductor of souls, should bring down all the race of men."
Nonnus, Dionysiaca 36. 97 ff (trans. Rouse) (Greek epic C5th A.D.) :
"Then Zeus Khthonios (Zeus of the Underworld) [Haides] rumbled hearing the noise of the heavenly fray above [as Poseidon and Apollon entered battle when the gods took sides in the war of Dionysos and his army against the Indians]; he feared that the Earthshaker [Poseidon], beating and lashing the solid ground with the earthquake-shock of his waves, might lever out of gear the whole universe with his trident, might move the foundations of the abysm below and show the forbidden sight of earth’s bottom, might burst all the veins of the subterranean channels and pour his water away into the pit of Tartaros, to flood the mouldering gates of the lower world. So great was the din of the gods in conflict, and the trumpets of the underworld added their noise."
Nonnus, Dionysiaca 36. 200 ff :
"[During the War of Dionysos against the Indians :] Lethe was choked with that great multitude of corpses brought low and scattered on every side. Aides heaved up his bar in the darkness, and opened his gates wider for the common carnage; as they descended into the pit the banks of Kharon’s river echoed the rumblings of Tartaros."
Nonnus, Dionysiaca 12. 213 ff :
"[Dionysos transforms his dead friend Ampelos into a grape vine at death :] `For you Haides himself has become merciful, for you Persephone herself has changed her hard temper, and saved you alive in death for brother Bakkhos. You did not die . . . You are still alive, my boy, even if you died."
Stesichorus, Fragment 232 (trans. Campbell, Vol. Greek Lyric III) (C7th to 6th B.C.) :
"Mourning and wailing are the portion of Hades."
Aeschylus, Seven Against Thebes 864 ff (trans. Weir Smyth) (Greek tragedy C5th B.C.) :
"Cry out the awful hymn of the Erinys [i.e. the shrieks and cries of the grieving women] and thereafter sing the hated victory song of Aides [i.e. the funeral dirge]."
Plato, Republic 427b (trans. Shorey) (Greek philosopher C4th B.C.) :
“The burial of the dead and the services we must render to the dwellers in the world beyond to keep them gracious.” [I.e. the gods of the dead and the ghosts of men.]
Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 5. 69. 5 (trans. Oldfather) (Greek historian C1st B.C.) :
"Of Haides it is said that he laid down the rules which are concerned with burials and funerals and the honours which are paid to the dead, no concern having been given to the dead before this time; and this is why tradition tells us that Haides is lord of the dead, since there were assigned to him in ancient times the first offices in such matters and the concern for them."
Statius, Thebaid 12. 557 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"The father of the Eumenides [i.e. Haides, father of the Erinyes] and the ferryman of Lethe’s stream [Kharon] debars them [i.e. the souls of the unburied] from the Stygian gate and keeps them hovering doubtfully between the worlds of heaven and hell (Erebus)."
I) NECROMANCY OF ODYSSEUS
Odysseus was instructed in the art of necromancy by the witch Kirke so that he might commune with the prophetic ghost of the seer Teiresias. According to the author of the Odyssey the rites were performed on the borders of the Underworld. Later authors, however, say that Odysseus visited the Nekromanteion (Oracle of the Dead) at Cumae in southern Italy.
Homer, Odyssey 10. 495 ff (trans. Shewring) (Greek epic C8th B.C.) :
"[Kirke instructs Odysseus in necromancy, the summoning of ghosts :] `You must visit the house of dread Persephone and of Haides, and there seek counsel from the spirit of Theban Teiresias. The blind seer’s thought is wakeful still, for to him alone, even after death, Persephone has accorded wisdom; the other dead are but flitting shadows . . .
And when you have sailed through the river Okeanos, you will see before you a marrow strand and he groves that are Persephone’s--the tall black poplars, the willows with their self-wasted fruit; then beach the vessel beside deep-eddying Okeanos and pass on foot to the dank domains of Haides. At the entrance there, the stream of Akheron is joined by the waters of Pyriphlegethon and a branch of Styx, Kokytos, and there is a rock where the two loud-roaring rivers meet. Then, lord Odysseus, you must do as I enjoin you; go forward, and dig a trench a cubit long and a cubit broad; go round this trench, pouring libation for all the dead, first with milk and honey, then with sweet wine, then with water; and sprinkle white barley-meal above. Then with earnest prayers to the strengthless presences of the dead you must promise that when you have come to Ithaka you will sacrifice in your palace a calfless heifer, the best you have, and will load a pyre with precious things; and that for Teiresias and no other you will slay, apart, a ram that is black all over, the choicest in all the flocks of Ithaka.
When with these prayers you have made appeal to the noble nations of the dead, then you must sacrifice a ram and a black ewe; bend the victims' heads down towards Erebos, but turn your own head away and look towards the waters of the river. At this, the souls of the dead and gone will come flocking there. With commanding voice you must call your cmorades to flay and burn the two sheep that now lie before them, killed by your own ruthless blade, and over them to pray to the gods, to resistless Haides and dread Persephone. As for yourself, draw the keen sword from beside your thight; then, sitting down, hold back the strengthles presences of the dead from drawing nearer to the blood until you have questioned Teiresias. Then, King Odysseus, the seer will come to you very quickly, to prophesy the path before you, the long stages of your travel, and how you will reach home at last over the teeming sea."
Homer, Odyssey 11. 10 ff :
"[Odysseus travels to the Underworld to consult the ghost of the seer Teiresias :] The vessel came to the bounds of eddying Okeanos, where lie the land and city of the Kimmeroi, covered with mist and cloud. never does the resplendent sun look on this people with his beams . . . dismal gloom overhangs these wretches always. Arriving there, we beached the vessel, took out the sheep and then walked onwards beside the stream of Okeanos until we came to the place that Kirke had told us of.
There, Perimedes and Eurylokhos seized the victims and held them fast, while I myself drew the keen sword from besie my thigh and cut a trench a cubit long and a cubit broad. Round it I poured a libation for all the dead, first with milk and honey, then with sweet wine, then with water; over this I sprinkled white barley-meal. Then with earnest prayers to the strengthless presences of the dead I promised that when I came to Ithaka I would sacrifice in my palace a calfless heifer, the best I had, and would load a pyre with precious things; and that for Teiresias and no other I would slay, apart, a ram that was black all over, the choicest in all the flocks of Ithaka.
When with my prayers and invocations I had called on the peoples of the dead, I seized the victims and cut their throats over the trench. The dark blood flowed, and the souls od the dead and gone came flocking upwards from Erebos--brides and unmarried youths, old men who had suffered much, tender girls with the heart's distress still keen, troops of warriors wounded with brazen-pointed spears, men slain in battle with blood-stained armour still upon them. With unearthly cries, from every quarter, they came crowding about the trench until pale terror began to master me.
Then with urgent voice I called my comrades to flay and burn the two sheep that now lay before them, killed by my own ruthless blade, and over them to pray to the gods, to resistless Haides and dread Persephone. As for myself, I drew the keen sword from beside my thigh, seated myself and held back the strengthless preseences of the dead from drawing nearer to the blood before I had questioned Teiresias."
Homer, Odyssey 11. 210 & 11. 386 :
"[Odysseus performs the necromantic rites and is approached by the ghost of his mother. He questions her :] `Is this some wraith that august Persephone has sent me to increase my sorrowing and my tears?’
So I spoke, and the queen my mother answered me : `Alas, my child, ill-fated beyond all other mortals, this is no mockery of Persephone’s; it is all men’s fortune when they die. The sinews no longer hold flesh and bones together; these are all prey to the resistless power of fire when once the life has left the white bones; the soul takes wing as a dream takes wing, and thereafter hovers to and fro . . .'
Meanwhile there appeared a whole company of women [before Odysseus], sent by Persephone the august; and these were the wives or the daughters of great men. They gathered flocking round the dark blood [of the sacrificed black sheep] all together. So they came forward one after another, and each in turn told me her lineage, for I left none of them unquestioned . . . Then, when chaste Persephone had dispersed this way and that the souls of those many women, there came before me in bitter sorrow the soul of Agamemon . . . Then there came before me the soulds of Akhilleus and Patroklos, of noble Antilokhos and of Aias . . . The soul of the fleet-foot son of Peleus went pacing forth over the field of asphodel . . . Other souls of the dead and gone still stood there sorrowfully, each of them questioning me on whatever touched them the most . . . Indeed I might then have seen [more of] those men of past days I wished to see, but before I could, there came before me with hideous clamour the thronging multitudes of the dead, and ashly terror seized hold of me. I feared that august Persephone might send against me from Haides’ house the Gorgoneion (the gorgon's head) of some grisly monster. I made for my ship at once, telling my comrades to step aboard and to loose the cables."
Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca E7. 7 & 34 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.) :
"He [Odysseus] sailed Okeanos, and offered sacrifices to the souls, and by Kirke's advice consulted the soothsayer Tiresias, and beheld the souls both of heroes and of heroines. He also looked on his mother Antikleia and Elpenor, who had died of a fall in the house of Kirke . . .
[Upon returning to Ithaka, Odysseus slew the suitors and then :] After sacrificing to Haides, and Persephone, and Teiresias, he journeyed on foot through Epiros, and came to the Thesprotians, and having offered sacrifice according to the directions of the soothsayer Teiresias, he propitiated Poseidon."
Lycophron, Alexandra 697 ff (trans. Mair) (Greek poet C3rd B.C.) :
"The grove of Obrimo [i.e. the grove of Persephone near Avernos in Italia], Kore (Maiden) who dwells beneath the earth, and Pyriphleges (the Fiery Stream), where the difficult Polydegmon hill [in Italy] stretches its head to the sky . . . and the lake Aornos [i.e. lake Avernus near Cumae in Italy] rounded with a noose and the waters of Kokytos wild and dark, stream of black Styx . . . he [Odysseus] shall offer up a gift to Daeira [Persephone] and her consort, fastening his helmet to the head of a pillar."
II) NECROMANCY OF TEIRESIAS
In Statius' Thebaid the seer Teiresias performs necromancy to commune with the dead when King Oidipous would learn the reason for the plague inflicting Thebes.
Seneca, Oedipus 395 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st A.D.) :
"[The seer Teiresias declares that he will perform necromancy :] `We must unseal the earth, must implore the implacable divinity of Dis [Haides], must draw forth hither the people [ghosts] of infernal Styx.'"
Statius, Thebaid 4. 410 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"He [the seer Teiresias] prepares the rites of Lethe [i.e. nekromankia], and makes ready beforehand to evoke the monarch [Haides] sunk below the confines of [the river] Ismenos where it mingles with the deep, and makes purgation all around with the torn entrails of sheep and the strong smell of sulphur, and with fresh herbs and the long mutterings of prayer . . . [Teiresias] bids the dark-fleeced sheep and black oxen be set before him . . . Then he entwined their fierce horns with wreaths of dusky hue, handling them himself, and first at the edge of that well-known wood [i.e. one sacred to the goddess Hekate] he nine times spills the lavish draughts of Bacchus into a hollowed trench, and gifts of vernal milk and Attic rain [i.e. honey] and propitiatory blood to the Shades below; so much is poured out as the dry earth will drink. Then they roll tree trunks thither, and the sad priest bids there be three altar-fires for Hecate and three for the maidens born of cursed Acheron [the Erinyes]; for thee, lord of Avernus [Haides], a heap of pinewood though sunk into the ground yet towers high into the air; next to this an altar of lesser bulk is raised to Ceres of the Underworld [Persephone]; in front and on every side the cypress of lamentation intertwines them. And now, their lofty heads marked with the sword and the pure sprinkled meal, the cattle fell under the stroke; then the virgin Manto [daughter of Teiresias], catching the blood in bowls, makes first libation, and moving thrice round all the pyres, as her holy sire commands, offers the half-dead tissues and yet living entrails, nor delays to set the devouring fire to the dark foliage. And when Tiresias heard the branches crackling in the flames and the grim piles roaring--for the burning heat surges before his face, and the fiery vapour fills the hollows of his eyes--he exclaimed, and the pyres trembled, and the flames cowered at his voice : `Abodes of Tartarus and awful realm of insatiable Mors [Thanatos, death], and thou, most cruel of the brothers [Haides], to whom the Shades are given to serve thee, and the eternal punishments of the damned obey thee, and the palace of the underworld, throw open in answer to my knowing the silent places and empty void of stern Persephone, and send forth the multitude that lurk in hollow night.'"
Statius, Thebaid 4. 520 ff :
"[The blind Teiresias while performing necromancy declares :] `Himself [lord Haides] I behold, all pale upon the throne, with Stygian Eumenides [Erinyes] ministering to his fell deeds about him, and the remorseless chambers and gloomy couch of Stygian Juno [Persephone].'"
III) NECROMANCY OF AESON & ALKIMEDE
Aeson and his wife, the Thessalian witch Alkimede, perform necromancy to learn the fate of their son, the hero Jason, and to bring down the curse of the dead upon King Pelias, who is plotting their death.
Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 1. 730 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"[Alkimede the mother of Jason, who has departed on his quest for the Golden Fleece, uses necromancy to summon the ghosts of the dead :] Unto the lord of Tartarus [Haides] and unto the Stygian ghosts was Alcimede [i.e. the mother of Jason] bringing holy offerings in fear for her mighty son [Jason, if Shades summoned forth might give her surer knowledge. Even Aeson [her husband] himself, who shares her anxiety but who hides such unmanly fears in his heart, yields and is led by his wife. In a trench stands blood and plenteous offering to hidden Phlegethon and with fierce cries the aged witch calls upon her departed ancestors and the grandson of great Pleione [i.e. Hermes, guide of the dead]. And now at the sound of the spell rose a face, insubstantial, and [the ghost of] Kretheus [the father of Aeson] gazed upon his mournful son and daughter-in-law, and when he had sipped the blood he began to utter these words . . . [The ghost tells him that Jason is safe, but King Pelias is plotting Aeson’s death.]
He [Aeson] returns to the holy rites [i.e. the necromancy]. Beneath the gloom of an ancient cypress, squalid and ghastly with darksome hue, a bull still stood, dark blue fillets on his horns, his brow rough with the foliage of yew; the beast too was downcast, panting and restless, and terrified at the sight of the shade. The witch [Alkimede], according to the custom of her evil race had kept him, chosen above all others, to use him now at last for these hellish practises. When Aeson saw that the bull still remained at the hour of the awful rites unslain, he dooms him to death, and with one hand upon the horns of the fated victim speaks for the last time `O ye [ghost of Kretheus] who received from Jupiter [Zeus] your reign and the light of life not idly spent . . . my father, summoned forth from the shades to view my death and to endure again the forgotten sorrows of men on earth, O grant me entry to the abode of quiet [Haides], and may the victim that I send before me win favour for me in your dwelling. Thou, O maid [Dike lady Justice], that dost report guilty deeds to Jove [Zeus], who lookest down upon earth with unerring eyes, ye avenging goddesses [Erinyes], thou Divine Law, and thou Retribution (Poena), aged mother of the Furiai [Erinyes], enter into the sinful palace of the king [Pelias], and bring upon him your fierce torches. Let accursed fear ravish his maddened heart; nor let him deem that my son alone will come with grim weapons in his bark . . . [and take vengeance on the king.]'
Then he appeased the goddess of triple form [i.e. Hekate, goddess of earth-bound ghosts], and with his last sacrifice offers a prayer to the Stygian abodes, rehearsing backward a spell soon, soon to prove persuasive; for without that no thin shade will the dark ferryman [Kharon] take away, and bound they stand at the mouth of Orcus [Haides]."
IV) NECROMANCY OF MEDEA
Witches such as Medea were practitioners of the necromantic rites. Medea employs these powers in a spell to restore youth to Aeson.
Ovid, Metamorphoses 7. 242 ff (trans. Melville) (Roman epic C1st B.C. to C1st A.D.) :
"[Medea uses her magic to restore Aeson's youth :] Two turf altars she built [for the ritual], the right to Hecate, the left to Juventas [Hebe, the goddess of Youth], wreathed with the forest’s mystic foliage, and dug two trenches in the ground beside and then performed her rites. Plunging a knife into a black sheep’s throat she drenched the wide ditches with blood; next from a chalice poured a stream of wine and from a second chalice warm frothing milk and, chanting magic words, summoned the Deities of Earth (Numina Terrena) and prayed the sad shades’ monarch (Rex Umbrarum) [Haides] and his stolen bride [Persephone] that, of their mercy, from old Aeson’s frame they will not haste to steal the breath of life . . . [and she then applied her potions to the body of the man.] And Aeson woke and marvelled as he saw his prime restored of forty years before."
V) THE NECROMANCY OF WITCHES
Not only Medea and Alkimede (above) but witches in general were regarded as practitioners of the necromantic rites.
Statius, Thebaid 3. 140 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"The gloomy councils of the Shades complain [at being summoned from Haides by a witch], and black Avernus’ sire [lord Haides] waxes indignant
VI) THE ORACLES OF THE DEAD
The Oracle of the Dead or Nektromanteion in Thesprotia was a shrine dedicated to the gods Haides and Persephone. The oracles of the daimones Amphiaraus and Trophonios in Boiotia were also necromantic in nature.
I) ERINYES & THE VENGEAFUL GHOST
Aeschylus, Libation Bearers 380 ff (trans. Weir Smyth) (Greek tragedy C5th B.C.) :
"[A supplication to the ghost of the murdered king :] This has pierced the earth and reached your [the ghost's] ear as if it were an arrow. O Zeus, O Zeus [here Haides, the Zeus of the underworld], who send long-deferred retribution up from below [i.e. in the form of the Erinyes] onto the reckless and wicked deeds done by the hands of mortals."
Seneca, Hercules Furens 100 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st A.D.) :
"Begin, [Erinyes] handmaids of Dis [Haides], make haste to brandish the burning pine."
Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 3. 380 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"We [the souls of the dead] are not dissolved into the breezes or into mere bones at the last: anger abides and grief endures. Thereafter when they are come to the throne of Awful Jove [Haides] and have set forth all the sorrowful story of their dreadful end, the gate of death is opened for them and they may return a second time [i.e. to the earth as vengeful ghosts]; one of the Sisters [i.e. the Erinyes] is given them as a companion, and they range together over lands and seas. Each involved in penalties the guilty souls of his own foes; they rack them with various terrors after their deserving. But those whose hands have dripped with blood unwillingly--or were it cruel mischance, though nigh to guilt, that swept away the wretches - these men their own minds harry in divers ways, and their own deeds vex the doers; languid now and ventureless they decline into tears and spiritless alarms and sickly sloth [i.e. in their grief at having accidentally killed someone]: such thou dost here behold . . .
Celaeneus [Haides], sitting sable-shrouded and sword in hand, cleanses the innocent from their error, and remitting their fault unwinds a spell to appease the angry Shades. He it was who taught me [the seer Mopsos] what lustrations should be made to the slain, he of his good pleasure opened the earth to Erebus below. When therefore the orient sets the crimson seas aflame, do thou summon thy comrades to sacrifice, and bring two steers to the mighty gods; for me were it wrong meanwhile to approach your gathering, until I spend the night in cleansing prayers [i.e. in preparation for the ceremony of purification to cleanse a man of the crime of murder, which drives away the haunting Erinyes and the avenging ghost of the dead]."
Statius, Thebaid 8. 21 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"[Haides commands the Erinys :] `Go, Tisiphone, avenge the abode of Tartarus! if ever thou hast wrought monsters fierce and strange, bring forth some ghastly horror, huge and unwonted, such as the sky hath never yet beheld, such as I may marvel at and thy Sisters [the Moirai] envy.'"
II) VENGEAFUL GHOSTS ON THE BATTLEFIELD
Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 4. 258 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"At their [ghosts of the men slain by the wrestler Ampycus] entreaty father Tartarus [Haides] sends forth in a hollow cloud the Shades of the slain to view at last the well-earned retribution [Ampycus’ own death]; the mountain-tops grow black with them."
Statius, Thebaid 11. 410 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"The king of Tartarus [Haides] himself orders the gates to be set open [ready to receive the legions of newly dead from war], and the Ogygian Manes (Ghosts) to attend their kindred’s monstrous deeds [in the internecine War of the Seven Against Thebes]. Seated upon their native hills they pollute the day with grisly band, and rejoice that their own crimes should be surpassed."
III) CURSE OF THE ERINYES
Homer, Iliad 9. 450 ff (trans. Lattimore) (Greek epic C8th B.C.) :
"I [Phoinix] first left Hellas . . . running from the hatred of Ormenos' son Amyntor, my father; who hated me for the sake of a fair-haired mistress. For he made love to her himself, and dishonoured his own wife, my mother; who was forever taking my knees and entreating me to lie with this mistress instead so that she would hate the old man. I was persuaded and did it; and my father when he heard of it straightway called down his curses, and invoked against me the dreaded Erinyes that I might never have any son born of my seed to dandle on my knees; and the divinities, Zeus Khthonios (of the underworld) [Haides] and Persephone the honoured goddess, accomplished his curses."
Homer, Iliad 9. 565 ff :
"Meleagros lay mulling his heart-sore anger, raging by reason of his mother’s [Althaia’s] curses, which she called down from the gods upon him, in deep grief for the death of her brother, and many times beating with her hands on the earth abundant she called on Haides and on honoured Persephone, lying at length along the ground, and the tears were wet on her bosom, to give death to her son; and Erinys, the mist-walking, she of the heart without pity, heard her out of the dark places."
Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica 3. 401 ff (trans. Rieu) (Greek epic C3rd B.C.) :
"[Khalkiope addresses her sister Medea :] `I implore you . . . not to stand by while they [her sons, who are accompanying the Argonauts] are mercilessly done to death. If you do so, may I die with my dear sons and haunt you afterwards from Haides like an avenging Erinys (Fury) . . . ’
[Medea replies to Khalkiope:] `Sister you left me speechless when you talked of curses and avenging Erinyes (Furies).'"
Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 7. 311 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"[Medea] wearies heaven above and Tartarus beneath with her complaints [about her love for Jason]; she beats upon the ground, and murmuring into her clutching hands calls on the Queen of Night [Hekate] and Dis [Haides] to bring her aid by granting death, and to send him who is the cause of her madness down with her to destruction."
Statius, Thebaid 1. 46 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman epic C1st A.D.) :
"[Oidipous blinded himself upon learning that he had slain his father and married his mother. His sons then treated him with cruel disdain and so he summons the Erinyes to punish them :] Oedipus with avenging hand probed deep his sinning eyes and sunk his guilty shame in eternal night . . . yet with unwearied wings the fierce daylight of the mind hovers around him, and the avenging Dirae [Erinyes] of his crimes assail his heart. Then he displays to heaven those empty orbs, the cruel, pitiful punishment of his own lie, and with blood-stained hands beats upon the hollow earth, and in dire accents utters this prayer : `Gods [Haides, Persephone and the Erinyes] who hold sway over guilty souls and over Tartarus crowded with the damned, and thou O Styx, whom I behold, ghastly in thy shadowy depths, and thou Tisiphone, so oft the object of my prayer, be favourable now, and further my unnatural wish . . . Sightless though I was and driven from my throne, my sons, on whatever couch begotten, attempted not to give me guidance or consolation in my grief . . . and they mock my blindness, they abhor their father’s groans . . . Do thou at least, my due defender, come hither, and begin a work of vengeance that will blast their seed for ever!'"
Suidas s.v. Persephone (trans. Suda On Line) (Byzantine Greek lexicon C10th A.D.) :
"Persephone : An Underworld spirit (katageios daimon). Elektra says : `O house of Haides and Persephone! O Hermes of the Underworld and holy Ara (Curse) and divine Erinnyes (Furies)! You who watch over those dying unjustly and those being robbed of a marriage bed: Come! Help avenge the murder of our father!'"
IV) CURSE-OATHS BOUND BY HAIDES & THE ERINYES
When Haides was invoked in an oath, the connotation was "let me be cursed, if I dare to break the oath."
Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica 2. 259 ff (trans. Rieu) (Greek epic C3rd B.C.) :
"[King Phineos swears an oath to the Argonauts :] `By the Powers below [i.e. Haides, Persephone and the Erinyes]--and may they blast me if I die forsworn--that you will not incur the wrath of Heaven by helping me.'"
Seneca, Oedipus 247 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st A.D.) :
"[King Oidipous swears an oath :] `Now at Heaven’s command let the crime be expiated [i.e. the murder of king Laios]. Whoever of the gods dost look with favour upon kingdoms--thou [Zeus], thou whose are the laws of the swift-revolving heavens; and thou [Helios the sun], greatest glory of the unclouded sky . . . and thou, his sister [Selene the moon] . . . thou [Poseidon] whom the winds obey . . . and thou [Haides] who dost allot homes devoid of light--do ye all attend: Him by whose hand Laïus fell may no peaceful dwelling, no friendly household gods, no hospitable land in exile entertain.'"
Seneca, Oedipus 868 ff :
"[Oidipous curses himself when he learns that he has killed his father and married his mother :] `Yawn, earth! And do thou [Haides], king of the dark world, ruler of shades, to lowest Tartarus hurl this unnatural interchange ‘twixt brood and stock.'"
HELM OF HAIDES The magical helm of Haides was crafted for the god by the elder Kyklopes to use as a weapon in the Titan-War. It bestowed complete invisibility upon the wearer (making him indiscernable even to gods).
SCEPTRE OF HAIDES Haides wielded a royal sceptre, a magical death-dealing staff which could sunder the earth, creating a passage between the world of the living and the world of the dead.
PALACE OF HAIDES The golden palace of Haides lay in the dark, dank realms of the Underworld.
THRONE OF HAIDES Haides sat dispensing fate upon the newly dead, from a golden throne in the hall of his palace, surrounded by the three Judges.
KEYS OF HAIDES The Gates of Haides were securely locked to prevent the escape of souls. Haides (or his doorman Aiakos) held the golden keys. HOUND OF HAIDES The gate of the house of Haides was guarded by the ferocious three-headed, monster-dog Kerberos. [See KERBEROS]
ORCHARDS OF HAIDES Near the palace of Haides lay the god's famed orchard of pomegranate trees. From one of these came the fruit which trapped Persephone in the Underworld (permanently but for a special dispensation from Zeus which allowed her to return to the world of the living for part of the year).
CATTLE OF HAIDES King Haides possessed a herd of immortal, sable-black cattle which roamed the asphodel fields of Haides under the care of the daimon herdsman Menoetes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSleach (talk • contribs) 02:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi DarkSleach. I see no reference above to the Cyclopes, and the only reference I see to Asclepius is this passage from Diodorus Siculus:
"It was believed that he [Asklepios] had brought back to life many who had died. Consequently, the myth goes on to say, Haides brought accusation against Asklepios, charging him before Zeus of acting to the detriment of his own province, for, he said, the number of the dead was steadily diminishing, now that men were being healed by Asklepios. So Zeus, in indignation, slew Asklepios with his thunderbolt."
But nowhere does it say that "Zeus returned Asclepius" from the underworld. So you still need to provide a reliable source for that before it can be added to the article (please see WP:Verifiability). You write "You have no right to delete anything that is a fact?|", please realize that just because something is true does not mean it belongs in the article, it must also be appropriate (e,g. relevant, important, on-topic etc.).
I said if you want challenge what I said. Prove me wrong. I did not give you the source to Asclepis turning into a god. Because I assumed you all ready knew that. You must not know crap about Greek Mythology. I research it every day. Been doing it for years. Look up the god Asclepius your self. I am not playing your game. Your trying to vandalize my work is what your doing. You should all ready know that Asclepius is a god. Zeus did bring him back. It's written on college websites and books. I cant give them to you because I dont recall. Where I read them. Go look it up before you decide to delete what I wrote. By the way your not the boss. Put anything in that is fact. You want to put something in do it. But dont delete anything I put in when it is a fact. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSleach (talk • contribs) 04:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
You write: Prove me wrong, but that's not how Wikipedia works -- it is your responsibility to provide reliable source for what you want to add to an article (see WP:PROVEIT), please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies (see WP:POLICY). Paul August☎12:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
By the way you keep deleting what I put in. I will just revive it again a thousand times. The ancient Greeks state everything I said. I did you give you every little source I read over the years. I was proving my point about how Hades rules the underworld. Since you like to delete it every time. I showed how Hades rules the underworld. The dead have no free will. Read Plato he states what I said. Hades gets angry when the dead gets away. When Zeus forced him to give up the Cyclopes and Asclepius. It was over Hades head. The Cyclopes ghosts live in the volcano mount Enta. You should all ready know that since you know so much about Greek mythology. Very few sources talk about Zeus returning Asclepius and the Cyclopes. You can read it in books. local legends and poet's not real big at their time. I can't give you the ancient source. For I dont have access to them. However you can read them on the internet and in published books. Their are popular stories. Their are stories shown in just a few fragments and paintings and pottery. In ancient play wrights their are a vast number of stories. You cant even keep up with everything you reed. You have 800 B.C. to 500 A.D. their are thosands of stories told. You cant even get access to all the written work. The books at the store only give the genral information. All the sources I showed you just now. Are translated texts from the ancient writers. My advise if you dont believe what I said. Look it up. Then delete it. Your asking me to give sources to something I read in a published book a long time ago. I dont know the ancient writer. Because the book never told me. Their are so many Classical writers and so many stories. You cant remember who wrote what. I only remember Homer from Hesiod. For information on many greek stories. Go to www.theoi.com. Not all ancient writers are on this site. But many of them are. Not everything the site creators say is correct. Some of it is personal opinion. Like when they say they believe that Apollo killed the Cyclopes sons. Instead of them there selfs. There is a story about that. However most are about Apollo killing the three Cyclopes. Instead of their four sons. Nothing in Greek mythology is clear cut. Every story is told different from each cult. As well as each writer. However what I said about Hades and Zeus. Was accepted by every writer. Is what you wanted to know. Tell me if I left anything out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSleach (talk • contribs) 05:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for discussing all this with me. You may well be right that there are myths which tell that Zeus returned Asclepius and the Cyclopes from the underworld, but you can't expect everyone to just accept your word for it, that's not how Wikipedia works. However, you don't need to give an ancient source, a reliable secondary source is in fact even better, so a "published book" -- assuming it's a reliable source (see WP:RS) -- is just fine. I've been trying myself to find a source for this, and have so far but with no luck. As for your writing′ I will just revive it again a thousand times, please don't do this, that is against Wikipedia policy (see WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:EDITWAR).
This year, showing how Cronus and Chronus were regularly and purposefully "confused" with each other is on my mythology to-do list. Hope all is well with you, Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much! All is very well with me. I don't interact as much as I should, but I always notice and appreciate your work, and I always enjoy seeing you here and there. Happy holidays, and hope all is well with you too. Paul August☎19:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, you may not have noticed, but your recent contributions have changed some parts of the text. If that was not your intention, do not worry, I proceeded to restore the item. I'll note that the change of content must be justified in the talk page of the article and hopefully you have a good intention, otherwise your actions will be considered vandalism. Thank you. (Slurpy121 (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC))Reply
Huh? Paul was reverting your removal of content without an edit summary or discussion on the talk page of Classical republic. You might want to be a bit more careful about tossing around the term vandalism and remember to remain logged in when editing: editing the same page from an account and an IP within a matter of minutes, and warning your own IP about its edits, looks a lot like a concerted effort at WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. davidiad.:τ02:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Indeed
Well, I'm always aware of your presence, as I become less vigilant regarding mythology articles when you're around. I don't know what to do about the recent string of infantile but not-quite-vandalistic edits at Labours of Hercules that occurred over the holiday season. There have been several intervening valid edits that may be tedious to reconstruct. When I noticed it last night, I threw up my hands in despair and moved on. Thoughts? Really, the whole article needs an overhaul. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
... needs an overhaul ... yes, like many others. But we can't do everything. And I'm an old curmudgeon who only does what he wants ;-) Paul August☎21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Today you justly deleted my edit on the "Factorization" page, but would you put my information back on with proper LATEX? This was my first wikipedia post and I was not sure how to format it, but the math is sound. thank you, Fragershroom (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am glad to let you know that the LaTeX issues are fixed, and you do not need to worry about fixing the page.If you want to check the math, go ahead. Thank you, Fragershroom (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Uncertain access? Does that mean I'll have to pay closer attention to mythology articles? Bleah. I hope you're going somewhere romantically remote and even better tropical (it's -14° C. where I am at the moment). Bon voyage! Cynwolfe (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Uncertain, but not apparently non-existant. As always you need to attend to whatever strikes your fancy. Yes, tropical, romantic and remote. As I seem to have better access than I might have had, I will probably be in and out. See you around. Paul August☎14:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hallo Paul,
I reverted again your edit on the Lagrange article. In the manual of style of biographies there is a guideline (WP:OPENPARA) which specifies which nationality should be mentioned in the first paragraph of an article. It is quite clear and, in the case of Lagrange, it is also indisputable that his notability was reached when he was in Turin. If you don't agree with the guideline (which of course is not perfect, but in my opinion has the advantage to stop a lot of the nationalistic edit wars which plague wikipedia), please go on the related talk page and discuss there, but please understand that as long as a guideline is there, it should be followed. Talking about my fellow citizens, Fermi, Segrè and Bruno Rossi became 100% Italians, while Giacconi and Viterbi are now 100% Yankees. Of, course, starting with the second paragraph you can write all what you want. :-) Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, ok if you insist, I won't argue (but I don't think I read the guideline quite like you do, and note for example that Britannica describes Lagrange as an "Italian French mathematician"). Paul August☎12:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! The GL says:"...or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." I think that it is clear, and in our case, notability was reached for sure not in France (most of his most important contributions were accomplished while he was in Germany). It is also quite evident for me that Lagrange was an Italian mathematician who later became French (BTW, asking Napoleon to annex its homeland - Piedmont - into the French Empire: so to say, he moved into France bringing his own country :-) ), and we can write it after the first sentence. Alex2006 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes but the sentence you quote starts off with "In most modern-day cases this will mean" (italics added for emphasis), and in any case WP:OPENPARA is only a guideline. My view is that Lagrange is considered to be both Italian and French, and Wikipedia should not choose one over the other. Paul August☎12:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Please read the end of this thread regarding Enrico Fermi, another famous Italian/something-else scientist (if you have time, you can read the whole thread :-)). About being "only" a guideline, I think that guidelines can be discussed, but as long as they are in force cannot be ignored. Alex2006 (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I may've just done bad things at Eros. I've been working on Cupid, and thought I was going to be working on it tonight because my Valentine was on deadline for a project. Turns out he finished early, and I may not get to finish what I intended. Anyway, when I was reviewing Eros I noticed that the section on his nature as a primordial god was completely missing, and the other background section as well. I don't see anything hideously misleading in those sections, and they're better than nothing, so went back to a version that had them. I did this in haste, but it seemed as if little or no real editing had been done in the meantime … mainly just vandalistic deletion and reversion. Since I know you watch the page, just thought I'd mention it, in case I screwed something up. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
why aren't you letting me spit on Plato's grave? my addition was totally awesome and lots of people think itRfkjnfjnj (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)why dont u find the sources hunty xoxoxoxox <3Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey Paul August; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul, did you want the sources for Greek Tragedy? If so, shoot me an email, I've nuked my old email, so I don't have your address anymore. davidiad{ t }02:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi David. I was really hoping that there might be a link you could post that would give all of us access to them, but I'm guessing not? I doubt that I will be able to do much with them on my own. But I will send you an email. On a related minor note, what do you think of the title of this article: Herakles' Children? I suspect that either "'Heracleidae'" or "The Children of Heracles'" would be better titles. Paul August☎13:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeah ... I'm just not comfortable with posting entire books online. I've sent some already and will sent some more in a bit. I understand not having the Wikienergy to undertake a big cleanup right now. As for the title: I think the person who wrote the original article must have had the one translation listed there that uses Herakles' Children as title. The two titles you're used to are also the only two I'm used to. I think Heracleidae is actually more common, but my view might be skewed because I only read specialist literature. In my opinion patronymics shouldn't be translated, but my Wikipedia rule of thumb for this issue has been to go with whatever the Loeb series has done recently ... in this case Children of Heracles. So, yeah, I agree with you that it would be better moved and I'd support either headword. davidiad{ t }15:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Since you keep deleting all my edits. Like when i put in that Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon Defeated the titans. You deleted it because your trying to delete all my edits. You must know me some how. Your a stalker. Your harrasing me. Now i will return the favor. Since you like to deltete all my edits. I am do right now delete everything you have ever put in now. Have a great day.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since you keep deleting all my edits. Like when i put in that Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon Defeated the titans. You deleted it because your trying to delete all my edits. You must know me some how. Your a stalker. Your harrasing me. Now i will return the favor. Since you like to deltete all my edits. I am do right now delete everything you have ever put in now. Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.186.167 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
another thing i just did. I just delted 5 of your edits on different pages right now. Tomorrow 10 more. I just deleted everything you put in on the Cepheus King of Tegea page. You try to restore it. I will delete again because I can. Stop deleting my edits on the Cyclopes page. Everythiong I put in is fact. Keep deleting my information. I will delete everything you ever put in. Have a good day. Moron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.186.167 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
DarkSleach, I'm sorry that you feel that you've been mistreated. What do you want me to do? Even if I "stop deleting" your edits on the Cyclops page, I can't stop other editor's from doing so. Notice that many of your edits to that page, including your last one, have been undone by several other editors besides me. If you keep doing what you've been doing you will probably end up being blocked or banned see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. There are other ways to try to resolve this problem see WP:DISPUTE. I'm willing to discuss any of this with you. Regards Paul August☎11:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Discussion at Talk:Eagle (Roman military standard)#Second survey
Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul, concerning the recent edits at Leibniz, the relevant reference seems to be Ariew and Garber. There are two mentions of kinetic energy on the page. The first one is not relevant, as you pointed out in your message summary. The second one seems to bear out the claim on Leibniz and kinetic energy, and provides the reference to Ariew and Garber. Tkuvho (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Possibly one is talking about different conservation laws. What you possibly have in mind is the conservation of the sum potential+kinetic. What Leibniz was referring to was the conservation of total kinetic energy (no gravity) in a system of, say, elastic balls. Tkuvho (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I followed your link on Kuhn, and then followed their link on "conservation of energy". Their historical section states: "History. The principle of the conservation of energy has a long and elaborate history, stemming from the 1670s theory of vis viva or “living force” of German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, to debates on the caloric theory, etc." So in a way this supports the claim on Leibniz. Tkuvho (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this supports what our articles on Liebnitz and conservation of energy say, but not what the IP wanted our article on Liebnitz to say, namely that Liebnitz was the discoverer of the conservation of energy. Paul August☎18:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Would it be appropriate to mention in the introduction that Leibniz discovered the law of conservation of vis viva a.k.a. kinetic energy? The sources seem to be in agreement on this. Tkuvho (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
But there is no "law of conservation of kinetic energy" (doesn't work for inelastic collisions, as you point out above). So to be accurate you'd have to say something like "Leibniz discovered that for elastic collisions, kinetic energy was conserved". That is probably accurate, but that leaves the question of whether it is important enough to be mentioned in the lead? I don't know. Paul August☎12:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree with your conclusion. I just thought such a discussion is a more constructive approach to the issue than the series of mutual reverts at Leibniz. Would it be OK to copy this thread to the Talk:Leibniz so the IP has a chance to respond? Tkuvho (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I was checking to see if this discussion had ever been copied over, and I mistakenly looked at the wrong talk page and copied it there. But I see that you apparently copied this discussing already so I've simple undone my recent copy. Paul August☎17:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please refer to the writings of Dasopholios before deselecting the resource link of Xena of Amphipolis as valid? Thanks in advance I will send on my research papers FYI.
David Greene PHD @ Harvard. 65.175.179.93 (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi David. Thanks for the note. Any source you can provide would be helpful. Who is Dasopholios? I can find nothing on anyone by that name. Paul August☎11:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul, saw your edit summary at Hephaestus. I agree with your removal, but since you ask who that Kabeirides is ... The Kabeirides are a trio of obscure nymphs who were either the sisters (Pherecydes) or consorts (Acusilaus) of the Kabeiroi—both cited by Strabo 10.3.21. Residue of this info shows up in Stephanus, too. That's the entirety of what antiquity has to say about them. davidiad{ t }01:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
P. S. Perhaps in the same vein, any thoughts on "Xena of Amphipolis" see immediately above and recent edits to Amphipolis. In particular do you know who "Dasopholios" might be? Paul August☎12:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I saw that, but didn't want to comment since I'd just have been a jerk to the IP-editor: you're a lot better at assuming good faith than I am. Dasopholios has enough of a veneer of plausibility on it that it could be imagined as a single fragment historian in Mueller or something, but it ain't an actual Greek name. davidiad{ t }17:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was in the middle of trying to improve Pergamon when I was interrupted by a small person needing tutoring. What a lovely surprise to find that the cites had already been cleaned up while I was busy!Mellsworthy (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
You reverted an edit I did on the article: Muslim
I changed: "who begets not nor was begotten" to "who begets but was not begotten"
and you reverted the edit on the basis that it changed the meaning. How does it change the meaning? This is basic "first cause" stuff. Both mean without creation, boundless, eternal - the first cause from which all emanates. Also "not nor" is just not working. It makes the reader pause to think why "not" meaning "in no way" and "nor" meaning "in no way" are together
e.g. I will not fight with other editors or Nor will I fight with other editors.
Look it up in a dictionary. I should say not nor look it up in a dictionary unless you wish to find out.
who begets but was not begotten = he who creates but was not created
begotten is the past participle of beget - beget means "To cause to exist or occur". So change to past participle: "was caused to exist or occur" then add "not" and hey presto:
"was not caused to exist or occur" in other words "he who is the cause of existence but himself was not caused to exist"
Perhaps the correct meaning is the one you've changed it to — what is the source for this? But the meaning of "begets not nor was begotten" is "does not beget and was not begotten". That is of course different than what you've written. Regards Paul August☎11:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm just interested in writing clear articles. Thanks
Thinking about it the confusion may be caused by the mixed tense. Past Perfect (whoops I mean Present Perfect) for the first clause of the sentence and Past Participle for the second clause of the sentence. Who begets = Who causes to exist - do we exist now? - yes - why do we exist? - because we have been created - hold on I was born in the 1990s and I had no existence 30,000 years ago - yes that is true because creation is still going on. That is why the Present Perfect is used - something that started in the past and is (or may be) still going on. Then we have the Past Participle for the second clause - if the creator exists then to even ponder if he was created or not is Past tense.
So the sentence stands. BTW I've given you definitions and tenses so its your responsibility to offer alternative definitions and tenses that justify the inclusion of the words you wish to see in the article. I've gone as far as I can to explain the grammar changes. Justify your sentence - I've justified mine.
What was written before (perhaps incorrectly) was "begets not" followed by the phrase "nor was begotten". The first phrase "begets not" is the negative of "begets" i.e. "does not beget". you've reversed that meaning to "does beget" No need to talk about tenses. Paul August☎13:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
You are absolutely right. My mistake I thought beget was being used in a "caused to exist or occur" sense and that the "not nor" was being applied to the second clause - still unusual to have "in no way in no way" "begets in no way in no way begotten" - oh well. Since this is the translation given on Islamic sites and I thought I was correcting a grammatical mistake not the meaning I humbly apologize for my mistake.
I left a comment on the articles Talk Page about the Tafsir al-Jalalayn interpretation. Its a choice of using the Sahih International version as given by Wiqi55 which is a transliteration for English readers or using the more expansive interpretation of the Tafsir al-Jalalayn:
He neither begot, for no likeness of Him can exist, nor was begotten, since createdness is precluded in His case.
I like the above because of the inclusion of "was". If we reduce it to bring it closer to the Sahih International version: He neither begot nor was begotten. That might be better than "he neither begets nor is born".
The Tafsir al-Jalalayn is from 1459 and is still used. What do you think?
For flow "nether begets nor was begotten" seems good to me. Perhaps you can find a common published translation of the phrase and use that, with quotes. Paul August☎19:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
That is good idea - "begets" is Present Perfect and the inflected form "begotten" covers Past Participle. Please note that I did keep saying Past Present - its Present Perfect for something that happened in the past and is (or may be) still be going on.
So "neither begets nor was begotten" may be the one.
I think we had better stick with the Tafsir al-Jalalayn version which uses begot and begotten. If Islamic scholars are happy with it - who am I to argue. Anyway it does seem to refute the belief in the Son of God and also that we are created in his likeness. So maybe it is saying "no! God didn't have a son and you were not created in his image" which would require the use of begot as given by the Tafsir al-Jalalayn.
What a waffle. Yep. Its "neither begets nor was begotten" - which states that no organic or inorganic object can be born or originate from him (Jesus, you, your cat, the images of him at the Sistine Chapel) because he is perfect and transcends representation or divisibility (the trinity is described as three parts of the same being) and that nothing was the cause of him (absolute, alone, one, unique). I'll go and change it now. Sorry about wasting your time while I worked out the "not nor" issue which actually was probably just a missing comma in the correct transliteration.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article redirects from Paeon and specifically has the designation (god) after it, not epithet. The article is titled Paean and yet Paeon is used for the majority of the article, even as the epithet, which you cited as being the primary use of the spelling Paean. The primary citation on the spelling being Paeon is copy/pasted from an article on the princeton.edu domain which recursively cites the Wikipedia article, which ultimately cites this article on the tufts.edu domain where the first word of the article is Παιάν with this word tracker showing they appear the same amount of times but the spelling with the acute emphasized alpha instead of the omega is the user voted favorite. Either way, until a preference can be cited, the article should use the spelling matching the name of the article, as the other spelling redirects to the current spelling. I'm going to roll back the edit and open up a discussion for it on the the talk page
A discussion on the talk page would be good. I'm the one who wrote most of the article, and when I wrote it the article was called "Peaon (god)", so that's why the spelling "Peaon" was used throughout. The article was, unbeknownst to me, subsequently moved to "Paean (god)" (with no discussion or reason given). My (albeit limited) research at the time I worked on the article seemed to indicate that "Paeon" was the more common name for the god (see for example this Google Books search), while "Paean" is the more common name for the epithet. But I could be wrong ;-) Regards, Paul August☎00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Plans for 30 day effort to get establish a page upgrade for Prometheus
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
From your revert today of the Goethe section.
May I invite you to the Cynwolfe Talk page discussion for a plan under way for improvements for a page upgrade for the Prometheus page. Also to invite your comments and possible participation. We have been discussing a 30-day plan for September to try to get this wikipage an upgrade status by the end of this month. Your comments are welcome.
The edit which you deleted was a transitional edit only. It was only made for the purpose of establishing the form of upgrade outline needed for the plan to obtain the page upgrade. As a good faith edit, after you visit the Cynwolfe Talk page discussion, if you have comments plus or minus, mark them into discussion. Invite to visit the discussion and participate to get the page upgrade. 72.68.5.132 (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The edit I was working on wrote over yours, sorry. It was not intentional and last night I corrected the image relocation. Right now I am logged in with the intention to reinstate your other edits. No need for you to do it again. I have the history up and will fix it. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You reverted my edit to the equation x^4 − y^4 = z^2.
While you are obviously correct, I think it would be more clear to add that something like "Since any solution of the Fermat equation with exponent 4 gives a solution of the equation also, it follows that Fermat's claim is true for n=4. [1] That is, the equation x^4 − y^4 = z^4 has no non-trivial integer solutions." after the sentence in question.
Somebody has to do it! Though in this case some subconscious alter ego seems to have been indulging in some sleep-typing. Makes me wonder what else It's done? Paul August☎13:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Paul August,
I heard from User:AGK that you might be interested in reviewing the article on mirror symmetry, which is currently a featured article candidate. If you're interested, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this page.
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Paul. I have received a request to look at your editing at Medusa. When I received that request, I had never edited the article, apart from one reversion of vandalism in April 2010, and as far as I recall I had not even looked at the article since then. I certainly had no prior knowledge or opinion concerning the issue that was raised in the message I received, but I have now checked the editing history of the article. I see that you have removed references to rape from the article. It is true that "vitiare" can be translated in various ways, depending on context, but the question to be addressed is not how you or I think it should be interpreted in this context, but how it is interpreted in reliable sources. The source cited in the article says "Poseidon also raped Medusa", but rather than just accept one source, I have searched for others. I found that a large number of sources explicitly refer to the act in question as rape, as for example, here, where we read "Ovid reports at 798 the rape of the maiden Meusa", here, where we read "When Neptune rapes her in the temple of the goddess", here "The aition of Medusa's hair provides the frame for the story of Neptune's rape of the girl", and so on. I found some sources which used less unequivocal language, such as "ravished" (which in any case is pretty certainly used to mean "raped"), but I have been unable to find any source which explicitly denies that it was rape, nor even one which seriously calls into question that reading. Do you have any reliable sources which contradict the reading of "vitiasse" as referring to rape? If you do, then it would be a good idea to indicate in the article that the interpretation is controversial, and to cite those sources along with one or more sources that take it as a case of rape. However, since there is clearly a substantial body of reliable scholarly opinion that does take it as rape, I can't see any justification for removing all reference to that view altogether. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi James. More (4.799) translates Hanc pelagi rector templo vitiasse Minervae dicitur as "Fame declares the Sovereign of the Sea attained her love in chaste Minerva's temple." And I think I've seen others which allow for something other than rape. If I have the time I may look for other sources, but unless I do, given the two sources you've provided above (I think you should add these to the article, they are better than the one currently there), I'm happy to let things stand as they are. Regards, Paul August☎14:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Goodness, "attained her love" for "vitiasse"? I can't find anything in any dictionary, either on paper or online, that supports that. About the weakest translations I can find are such terms as "spoil", "damage". For example, http://www.wordsense.eu/vitio/#Latin gives "make faulty, spoil, damage", and it also gives "violate sexually". I am inclined to the impression that Brookes More, who was born in 1859, was indulging in a little Victorian prudery, and censoring the text. As I said above, what you or I think the translation should be is not the deciding factor, but for what it's worth, it seems to me that of all the possible meanings of the verb, "rape" (or "violate sexually") is the one most natural in the context, but at the very least something like corrupting her by leading her astray must be intended, since all the meanings of the word have unmistakable connotations of damage or violation, which "attained her love" does not even remotely hint at. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well keep in mind that vitiasse (violate) might be being used by Ovid to describe what was being done to "chaste Minerva's temple" as much or more than what was being done to Medusa, and even if the sex were meant to be consensual, Ovid might still describe Medusa as being "violated". In any case this is poetry we are talking about here, perhaps we are asking too much of it. Paul August☎16:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Paul August,
I see history of Euclidean geometry I think You have knowledgeable classical geometry, please read pages Dao's theorem and comment anything You think. Delete or keep pages Dao's theorem. Thank to You very much.
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Hello, I'm Robert McClenon. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You deleted content from WP:AN. It has been re-inserted. If this was an accident, disregard this message.Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) Fat-finger syndrome? But Robert, I think asking a long-time administrator with I don't know how many harmlessly useful edits since 2004 to use the sandbox if he would like to experiment is a little uncalled-for, even if he did misclick. You wrote a few words of your own, which is nice, but they would have been enough; why post the template at all? Humanspeak rules, unless you're actually reverting vandalism. Bishonen | talk01:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC).Reply
Your edit summary made me smile ;-) While humanspeak is usually better, in my case templatespeak suits since I'm only artificially intelligent. Paul August☎01:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, I just wanted to drop a line explaining why I changed "spring" back to "autumn" on Eleusinian Mysteries - the paragraph in question describes Greene's theory that Persephone's time in Hades represents the parched Greek summer, not the winter, and that Persephone's return corresponds to planting seeds in the autumn, not the spring. In almost every other case, we'd be right to have "spring" there, but in this particular paragraph, "autumn" is correct. (Whether Greene was correct or not is questionable, even though his work is seminal, and that's discussed in the very next paragraph.) In any case, thanks for your efforts on mythology articles. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You look like a very experienced editor so I was wondering why you reverted my entry on Talk:Reductio ad absurdum. As I'm sure you know, editing other editors' Talk comments is not done except for very specific reasons (WP:TPOC). I didn't think my remarks were off-topic or libelous :) Was it just an error? --ChetvornoTALK20:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not going to start a revert war, but suggest you reconsider your reversion of my edit a while ago to waves. There is no such thing as an air molecule. In mechanics and acoustics we speak of air "particles" but gas molecules, or we skip the semantic issue entirely by talking about density rather than discrete items. There is no such thing as an air molecule. Altaphon (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Paul, you just deleted a paragraph on Zero in the section of computer science. But, you did not provide a reason for your reversal (or delete). Please tell us the reason why you remove it.
Dear Paul, please consider adding this information on computer section of zero.
Computers communicate with each other with lights (Fiber Optics) or Electrical Signals. The advantage of using light is you can beam it through satellites, just as you would beam light through mirrors. When you see lights turning on and off very quickly in a network, it means there is a network communication of different computers. This OFF and ON is represented by 0s and 1s, respectively. Calculating with 0s and 1s is called Boolean algebra. In a computer, ON means 1 and OFF means 0. One English alphabet is represented by a bunch of binary numbers. For example, A=01000001, B=01000010, C=01000011 etc. etc. So, when you push the alphabet “A” on the computer, there is a cut off time, and this is “01000001”. One computer sends this binary number (“01000001”) and the receiving computer interprets it to “A”. Each color has its own binary numbers. That is what it means when we say that a camera is a digital camera --it simply means, it understands binary numbers. However, since we cannot write with binary numbers, we must use computer languages to write the binary numbers in the computers for us. The computer languages in turn work between the users and the computers. In other words, as you are reading this, behind this page, there is a computer language page; behind that computer language page, there is a binary number language page; behind that binary number language, there is 0s and 1s page; and behind 0s and 1s, there is light on and off page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannesb (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry but even if one were to fix the many problems with the above text, I don't think this it has much to do with the number 0, and thus doesn't belong in that article. Paul August☎19:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul, I just wanted to let you know of a discussion at the WP:Wikiproject religion re the presentation of supposedly divine beings. The main concern is that present day faiths are treated as religions while past time faiths are labelled as myths. GregKaye18:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
There is a difference between Greek mythology and Greek religion, fugures such as Gaia and Thalia have more to do with Greek mythology than Greek religion. Paul August☎12:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Removing red links is at best controversial. Depends on whether there might be an article there. Leaving them might encourage others to create the articles. I also apologize for the edit summary. Overbearing and wrong-headed. I was not thinking clearly. Sorry. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎)12:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul August, I'm an editor who contributed an amount to Socrates, and the subject of my edits is under discussion on that articles talk page. Would you please join the discussion as i would really value your involvement since you state - Advanced degrees! and Areas of interest: Mathematics, Classical history, Philosophy, and being listed in the top ten edits Whalestate (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Paul,
Regarding: (Undid revision 661595908 by Jcardazzi (talk) I'm dubious this is a common name for this field of mathematics: Source?)
Below are some sources, the first is listed as an external link in the mathematical and real analysis WP articles.
In Math, the term basic analysis seems to be the subject name used as an introduction to real analysis, sometimes
also used a standalone name, sometimes used in a combined name Basic Real Analysis. The style of the name seems to vary by the university math department
Maybe a better edit is (Basic Analysis is a subject name used for an Introduction to Real Analysis).
I knew the subject as basic analysis and could not find the name in wikipedia, and just wished to make the connection for other readers in the future.
A MAT 312/312Z Basic Analysis
Theoretical aspects of calculus including construction of the real numbers, differentiation and integration of functions in one variable, continuity, convergence, sequences and series of functions.
http://www.albany.edu/undergraduate_bulletin/a_mat.html
Hi Jcardazzi. "'Basic Analysis" being the name of a course on the subject of real analysis, or the name of a book about the the subject of real analysis, is not the same thing as being another name for the field of mathematics called real analysis. Paul August☎20:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi Paul August, yes I understand.
Because the term "Basic Analysis" is used as a name for an Introduction to Real Analysis, could text be added to the article to note the term Basic Analysis is used as a shortname for an Introduction course to Real Analysis?
Thank you, Jcardazzi (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazziReply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I hoped smb will have the patience to REMOVE THE WRONGLY PLACED MATERIAL, not just my "message in a bottle". The latter is easy. Check the definition (in the lead or anywhere else) and you'll see what I mean. For a change, there is little to discuss here. If you're involved in this art., please do take it on from here, but in a thorough manner please. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)ArmindenReply
article "'Unconventional Director Sets Shakespeare Play In Time, Place Shakespeare Intended".<ref>[http://www.theonion.com/articles/unconventional-director-sets-shakespeare-play-in-t,2214/?ref=auto</
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey!
I have always known that one of the main hopes of Hannibal when invading the Italic paeninsula was that the socii would abandon Rome, thus destroying the Roman hegemony in the process. While Etruria, Umbria, Picenum and Latium were largely unscathed and retained their allegiance to the republic (Rome kept legions there in order to convince them, lol), the Southern regions (where Hannibal and his army were actually staying) defected (i.e., they had no other option but defecting) Rome. Thus, primarily, Capua, the Hirpini (but not the other Samnites), Apulians, Lucanians...
While I have never heard of Hannibal ever actually deploying any of their troops in battle, that was the point I wanted to make: both Numidians and Italians were forced to be on both sides of the war.
--2.41.55.118 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Paul, I read somewhere few days ago that through wikipedia one can access digitally pay sites for free. I am interested in reading some articles or passages in books on Dionysian initiations and the Kaberoi.
Could you please let me know where I can find the relevant info about procedure? Thank you and sorry for the trouble.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul,
At Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_20#Demon_of_the_pit we're having some fun trying to sort out the "etymology" of Demon of the pit for Cerberus/Kerberos, which I guess used to be the etymology here (I've read Talk:Cerberus#Etymology, and if it helps to establish bona fides, I'm the co-creator of {{etymology}})). I noticed you'd done a lot on the etymology of this, but am trying to pin down when it was changed from nonsense to something sensible, as the nonsense etymology went feral. It's no big deal, but if you happen to know, I'd be glad to have my curiosity unpiqued.
@SimonTrew: Actually, although I've extensively rewritten most of the article Cerberus over the last two months, I've yet to do much with the "Etymology" section (unfortunately that's also my weakest area). Most of what little I know (so far) is already included in that section. I do have the Ogden source mentioned there, and he does say a bit more with several scholars (in addition to Lincoln) critical of the "spotted" etymology, but nowhere have I found any mention of this "demon of the pit" etymology. So, unless some reliable source for that etymology can be found, I think that redirect should go. Regards, Paul August☎19:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the prompt reply. I will try to fill you in as best I can, but I didn't want to go on too long (a bad habit of mine.)
If one puts "Demon of the pit", with the quotes, into Google, one gets a lot of results, but most are essentially quoting Wikipedia, as far as I can tell (I've put in a couple over at the RfD that I linked earlier, one to the documentation for Ruby (programming language) and one taught in a computer science course from a university that I have never heard of, the University of Kerching Kerching, or something. I didn't try too hard, but that reference predates the use in WP by three years.
My Ancient Greek is nonexistent beyond translating the alphabet; my Latin a little better. The "spotted" dog reminds me a bit of Anubis in Egyptian mythology, sometimes depicted as a jackal, but a jackal ain't much spotted. There is the phrase "they were first spotted" in the Golden Jackal article, but in hunting that down I followed false scent.
The plot thins... I'll try to help you with the ety, if you want. This one is getting in the way of it, so the sooner deleted, the better: thanks for that. Si Trew (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@SimonTrew: I've now found what I suspect to be the original source for the "demon of the pit" etymology: Robert Graves, The Greek Myths (not the most reliable of sources), which in the index entry for Cerbeus, p. 385 has "? ker berethrou, demon of the pit". Paul August☎20:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Nice one. The first sentence at fi:Kerberos (Finnish) is in that -thou form; I think the -os form would be nominative and perhaps (transliterated) this is dative or ablative, but then I am thinking in Latin not Greek. I doubt OE letter thorn (we could have done with keeping that for a theta), but I'll check it out. Good RS you have there; I only have Graves in woodware. Si Trew (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
This is no good, I bet it comes from WP ety unattributed: [[103]]. This would be the "Wikipedia is unreliable" argument, not the "You did not quote where you got it from under CC-SA" argument. Si Trew (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hola enigma.
Esa leyenda me parece que noes atribuible a la mitología griega ,si no más bien a la sumeria o egipcia.
Cerbero deriva de "Ker Berethrou" (demonio del abismo),es decir, que se le puede atribuir,confusamente,cualquier mito que tenga que ver con un Ker(o Cer).
No obstante,cada autor tiene licencia para describir un mito como le salga de los güevos,de hecho, Hesiodo le puso 50 cabezas al "canis abominablis".
Ahora permíteme un par de preguntas:
¿Quién castigó a Kerbero?
¿Cuál es la editorial?
Roughly:
Hi Enigma..
It seems to me that this legend attributed to Greek Mythology, is more Sumerian or Ancient Egyptian.
"Cerberus" is derived from "Ker Berethrou" (Demon of the Abyss [my, SimonTrew's emphasis: Spanish Abismo]; it could be attributed (confusingly) with any legend that has to do with Kerberos/Cerberus.
Now, allow me a few questions:
Who punished Kerberos?
Who is the publisher?
I guess this is someone self-publishing something about this legend, but the telling thing is the reply saying it could be equally Sumerian or Egyptian. I realise this is not RS of course but why would they say that... perhaps the story was just set vaguely in the ancient world of course. But might be worth following up to see why she would think it at all viable to be set in Egypt or Sumeria. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
By the way you can use {{ety}} to do {{ety|grc|berethron|pit}} to give
from Ancient Greek berethron 'pit' and things like that. Hardly anyone does, but in wishful days we thought we would actually have some articles meeting WP:MOS, but since that is such a moving target anyway I just gave up on that in preference to WP:COMMONSENSE and barely look at it now. MOre important to create and correct content; RfD is a bit of a backwater, I know, but it is kinda widely if shallowly knowledgeable people – and I hope I am one of them – who can at least do some gnoming on indexes and disambiguation and translation and stuff like that. Si Trew (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi Ashim. Please see WP:ERA. On WIkipedia either era system, BC/AD or BCE/CE, may be used, and it is generally against Wikipedia policy to change one system to the other. Paul August☎11:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see no discussion about named references on Talk:Cerberus and I don't feel the need to bother other editors with this discussion. If not using named references were a practice determined by consensus, I would have expected to see a discussion. Rather, this seems like a unilateral decision, so I felt that I should ask you directly about reverting my edit. I do not understand the cause for reversion. The only things that I could see that might drive this decision would be the references section outside of the notes section or that you're working on your own version, but I don't understand why this would prohibit named references. Named references are used to combine identical references; I can't fathom how it would be more helpful to have duplicate footnotes, even if they were referring to references in the reference list. I am restoring my original edits that were not related to references in a separate edit, but I will WP:AGF and refrain from cleaning up duplicated references for the time being. Not sure why you couldn't just put the rationale in the edit summary, but the onus should be on you to provide rationale as to why this action isn't WP:OWNy or to demonstrate consensus. —Ost (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi Ost216. Named references make an article more difficult to edit, and in fact present a considerable barrier to editing, especially to the novice editor. For some articles which rely on a few specific citations, used over and over throughout the article, I can see some advantages (though probably not enough in my view to out weigh the disadvantages). But that is not the case here. Why do you want to change the way this article does its citations? What is the large benefit you see which out weight the disadvantages? You say the onus is on me to say why I want to preserve the status quo, I rather think the onus is on you to say why you want to change it. See for example WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." And by the way if you are going to introduce named references you should choose descriptive names rather than "auto1" and "auto2" etc. There is more that I could say but right now I'm leaving on a trip now and internet access will be limited. Regards, Paul August☎11:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Are you aware that your revert added a duplicated link to Macedonia (ancient kingdom)? Macedon, just a couple of words later is a redirect to that article, and the main reason why I reverted the edit by Muntele. And Muntele's seemingly POV edits on a string of other articles, which include replacing "Greece" with "Macedonia", and generally downplaying Greece, is the reason I restored the link to Ancient Greece. Just thought I'd let you know. Thomas.W talk21:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Paul, I would like to download Buck's "Grammar of Oscan and U." available at Hathitrust. Can I do it through Wikipedia or if not, by what other means? Thank you for the attention.Aldrasto1111:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Paul August - I noticed that you are interested in the Outline of mathematics. So am I. Last month I initiated a discussion about Divisions of mathematics on the WikiProject Mathematics talk page. I was particularly concerned with the structure of Template:Areas of mathematics. Some discussion ensued but little was done. I wonder if you would be curious to take a look at the discussion and share your impressions with me.--Toploftical (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul. Do you think it is time to ask for semi-protection for this page? I realize that your hands are tied in this matter, but I would be willing to make the request if you thought it was appropriate. They(?)'ve been at it daily since July 1 (and sometimes more than once a day) and many of the IP's have been devoted just to this. While I had initially felt that this might be a valid, but overstated, point, I now consider it just another form of persistent vandalism. Thanks for your daily efforts with this. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
What do you mean it's not an improvement? If there were a smallest positive rational number, then there would be and that would be that, but since there isn't precisely for that reason, you have to say "supposedly"; otherwise you're contradicting yourself. Esszet (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
No you don't have to say "supposedly" (that would be redundant). And you're not "contradicting yourself", saying "if P" doesn't mean you are asserting that P is true. Paul August☎18:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes you do; if there were, there would be, and that would be that; thus it would not be able to be divided by two to get a smaller one. That sentence is thus nonsensical and contradictory. Esszet (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul, I'm new to editing here and just wondering - what in my addition of a relevant artist was inappropriate for Mathematics and Art?
Wmccrue (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Paul August. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I apologize. I was using the mobile app on Android, and the em dashes rendered incorrectly. I misinterpreted them as en dashes, and so I used the snd template to "fix" them. It may have been a bug in the app, or it might have just been my eyes playing tricks on me. In either case, there was another fix in the same edit (an extra space before a ; ), but I have to go to class now. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horae&oldid=prev&diff=747812883ReGuess (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. Mike V • Talk20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Paul August.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Paul August. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Paul August. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Paul. About the Category:LGBT themes in mythology in the Endymion (mythology), there says: "According to a passage in Deipnosophistae, the sophist and dithyrambic poet Licymnius of Chios[11] tells a different tale, in which Hypnos, the god of sleep, in awe of his beauty, causes him to sleep with his eyes open, so he can fully admire his face."FábioEscorpião (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree that a reasonable interpretation of Athenaeus' quote (given on the page you link) is that in Athenaeus' view at least, Licymnius represented Hypnos (Sleep) as loving Endymion, in a romantic/sexual way, but that is just my personal opinion and carries no weight. What we really need is some modern scholar who interprets the Licymnius fragment in this way. The cite that you link to is neither a reliable source, nor does it give any interpretation at all of the Licymnius fragment. Paul August☎15:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
No, there's no "procedure". Bringing it up where you did was fine. It would also have been reasonable to have simply removed it yourself. Paul August☎22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Good job catching that IP's edits. That's the kind of vandalism that can linger for months or more if not caught right away. Cheers! Sario528 (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, could I possibly ask your opinion about recent (and not so recent) edits to the Demigod article? This afternoon I noted down most of the edits over the past few months by an IP whose only real contribution to this article seems to be to change citations so that they point to the most modern edition and then demand that page numbers be supplied. There have been more since I did this. Additionally there have been vague requests for more examples, requests that the See Also section be reduced, requests for ISBNs of pre-ISBN books and so on. There are also a few genuinely helpful edits and I have mostly tried to accommodate the user by doing things like searching for page numbers. It may be something I should simply accept; and I realise these tags are available for a reason. But at the same time my overall impression is that he is not really here to do anything except get as many tags into the article as possible and he refuses to engage in any discussion or even to provide edit summaries. Your opinion would be appreciated. Many thanks. --Lo2u(T • C)17:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi Lo2u, I've been watching that page, and I think you've done a good job responding to the IP edits there. As you say some of the IP edits have been helpful, and the others have been undone, with no apparent objections from the IPs. So the net effect has been to make the article a little better. I haven't seen any obviously malicious edits—the request for nonexistent ISBNs might simply be ignorance. The worst suspicion I might entertain about the user (or users) is that they are perhaps taking some sort of juvenile pleasure in making you hop to their tune, but nothing actionable yet. I understand that this, and their unwillingness (or inability?) to communicate might be frustrating. I will continue to watch the article and help out in any way I can. Paul August☎12:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
.. sorry. I have always wondered how editing worked because my teachers say Wikipedia is not a good source because anyone can edit it. I hope you forgive me for the vandalism. I am willing to take any punishment. Ikester45102 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
No not pointy. It seems to me that in a section titled "Wading and bipedalism" it's appropriate to show an image of a wading biped. Do you think it shouldn't be there? Paul August☎17:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
The image illustrates what the text is talking about. It doesn't make any assertions, other than that it is an image of a wading gorilla, which I don't think needs a source. Paul August☎17:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
What line from the text are you contending that the image is talking about? As for WP:POINT, I don't understand why you think it appropriate to reinsert an image that I removed and is being discussed at AN/I. It feels WP:BAITy to me. Sorry if I'm overreacting. jps (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
ANI is for discussions about conduct not content, in this case about your conduct in making this edit. So I don't see how such a discussion, makes my adding that image (with a slightly different caption) inappropriate. You now seem to be accusing me of trying to bait or goad you in some way. I assure you that's not the case. As for further discussions of the merits of the image in the article, I suggest they should occur on the article's talk page. Paul August☎18:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I was talking about my feelings here. It feels baity/pointy. I am not arguing that you are doing anything wrong, I'm merely pointing out my feelings and trying to figure out what your intention is. jps (talk)
I just thought I'd let you know that jps's assertion "None of the sources mention gorillas wading as somehow being relevant to AAH" is far from correct. I've just checked on three sources mentioned in the section and also in the discussion pages, about this picture. Niemitz 2002 has 22 mentions of gorillas, Niemitz 2010 has 16, and Kuliukas 2010 has 24. Both of them favor a wading hypothesis so his edit comments "not an article on wading gorillas" and "gorillas aren't bipeds" (assuming this is him) are uninformed and simply working the system. He clearly never looked at the article and assumed you wouldn't have time to either. Chris55 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes you're right, I'd forgotten about Plato's unorthodox Titan genealogy. But I'm not sure that warrants their inclusion in that category. If you do want to add back the category I won't remove it again, but you should add the Plato reference to their articles. Paul August☎00:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Markx121993: Thank you. I have some other concerns about your changes to that list, which I will discuss on the talk page there: Talk:List of Oceanids. By the way it is best if all discussions concerning a particular article are conducted, all in one place, and on that article's talk page, so that other editor's of that page will have easy access to all relevant discussions. So I am going to copy your comment above to that page, and let's continue our discussion there. Regards, Paul August☎10:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I could use your help over at the CITEVAR discussion. I feel it's important, as I often revisit pages that I have on my watchlist, and I find vertical formatting easier to read cites. I don't mess with the formatting of citations that others put on pages, and I'm only asking Synthwave for the same courtesy. If you have time to weigh in again, I'd really appreciate it, thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think I've said all I really want to say there. I would also encourage you to not be so attached as to whether horizontal or vertical formatting is used, as I don't think it really makes much difference. Paul August☎15:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Original Barnstar
This is for all your hard work at Iacchus, which brought massive improvements to the article. I see you are now already hard at work trying to improve the article Delphyne. I hope this project turns out just as productive as your previous endeavor. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Bishonen: Hmmm ... I guess so?? I really have no idea how that happened. Anyway sorry about that. One wonders what else these fingers have done unbeknownst to me. Paul August☎14:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You were quite right.
However, the text as it stood was confusing. I spent about half an hour finding the edit where that odd formation ("Poseidon Erechtheus") entered the text, and seeing no explanation thought it must have been an editing farble.
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
The Original Barnstar
This is for all your amazing hard work on the section about ancient Near Eastern parallels at Typhon, which was an outstanding improvement to the article. I thought you deserved a little more recognition than just a "thank." --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Katolophyromai: Thanks. So I'm assuming no other concerns/issues/suggestions then? One possible concern I had was that the section might be too long, although I can't see how to make it much shorter. Paul August☎13:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I do not think the section is too long. I have read it over a few times briefly and it seems to be good, but I may spend more time going over it later, possibly today or tomorrow. From what I have seen, I did not notice any really obvious errors or misstatements. I noticed that you did not mention the Hittite myth of Ullikummi, which Jaan Puhvel associates with the Greek myth of Typhon on pages 25-30 of his book Comparative Mythology, and I believe I have seen associated with it in some other sources that I cannot recall. Nonetheless, the Ullikummi myth is very similar to the "Teshub vs Hedammu" myth, which you do mention. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
@Steevven1: Well I was wondering about your edits at Mathematics because of your edit at Quantity, which has been a frequent edit by editors who seem determined to, as you say, "correct" the mathematics "dead end". I want to make sure that you understood that there is nothing inherently wrong with articles not "getting to Philosophy" and changing the links in an article based upon whether of not articles "get to Philosophy", is considered disruptive.
As for your link for "space" in the Mathematics article, that lead sentence has been discussed inrensively, and any changes to it are likely to be controversial, and probably should be proposed first on the talk page. Regards, Paul August☎11:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi Wolfmankurd. Sorry if I upset you by undoing your edit, but I don't think we should mention specific loops on that page since doing so seems to encourgage some editors, who see such loops as a problem, to "fix" them. This has been a source of disruption on several pages, so anything we can do to minimize that would be a good thing.
As far as the sentence that you think is incorrect, you are right that currently no articles end at Science or Language (though in fact, they seem to currently end at Knowledge not Mathematics?), it is still the case that articles tend to end at "wide-reaching pages such as Mathematics, Science, Language, and of course, Philosophy", since Science and Language are still examples of "wide-reaching pages", even if no pages currently end at them.
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for spotting the error in my recent edit to Pandora's box. I'm currently working on 'modern' literary and artistic interpretations of Pandora and remembered the detail that Hera gifted her with curiosity without checking the Hesiod source. Hera's gift is mentioned in any number of post 2000 books but I can't find any old and reputable source that does so. I'll continue looking, because it bothers me where that story comes from; but if you already know, I'd be grateful if you could give me the reference. My best guess is that it was slipped into the 15th C Latin version of Hesiod, or it may be in the Calderon drama. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sweetpool50: I don't know where the curiosity meme comes from, but I've looked before and I don't think it is from any ancient source. But I could be wrong, it's hard to prove a negative ;-) Paul August☎12:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I notice your name as among the editors of the Pandora article, so I guess you may eventually be looking at the additions I uploaded this evening. If the last section there seems to end abruptly, that's because there is another to follow. So far I wanted to integrate bits taken from already existing sections into a new context. It was all getting rather complicated, so I decided to go ahead with what I had so far. I may not get another chance for a day or two! Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've tracked back Hera's gift of curiosity to an English burlesque play of 1831, of which there is a review here. That's regressed it by two centuries, for a start! Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"I'm here to ask you for a little help, Paul. I know you've been editing the page of "Quantity" for a long time, and you agree that the word "property" should not be linked. I know that you know that small change will lead the "lead to philosophy" theory be gone, I don't know the reason why you do it, but I wanna to say, I'm an ordinary person who really loves knowledge just like you, just like all the other wiki editors. Wikipedia is the best resource website that I can learn all kind of knowledge, and when the time I saw the theory that clicking the first link in every page will lead to philosophy, I was delighted, I was delighted by the fact that philosophy is the study of all the essential questions and all the pages of Wikipedia will eventually link to the word philosophy. This is not about any rules or concepts about how to edit Wikipedia anymore, this is about done you want to keep the "fairy tale" of knowledge or do you want to kill it by not linking property. Before I can tell my kids that the Wikipedia they are using has a magic, because everything will eventually link to PHILOSOPHY, but now... now everything will end up the loop of "mathematics" and "element (mathematics), so please, Paul, I'm asking you as a normal person that may you bring the philosophy fairy tale back to Wikipedia, I know you have the ability to end all those unnecessary debates, thanks!
Hi Lewis. thanks for your question, I will try to explain. Adding or removing links to articles should be based upon WP:LINK. This is Wikipedia policy, and has wide editorial consensus. In particular, links should not be based upon whether of not link chains "make it to Philosophy". Moreover, there is no reason why articles should "lead to "philosophy" in the first place. Why not to "mathematics" or "knowledge"? Or some other article? (And in fact, it is entirely possible that a few editors went around changing links in order to create the phenomenon in the first place.) In any case "games" like this are frowned upon, and could lead to being blocked from editing, so please don't do this. Thankyou. Paul August☎15:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Special Barnstar
Despite my recent tribulations, I haven't lost faith in Wikipedia yet, since I have a high regard for admins such as yourself and User:NinjaRobotPirate who appear make decisions based on objectivity and fairness, rather than emotion.92.9.144.164 (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Good, and thanks for the note. The name was familiar but rang the wrong bell. Three months hence, I'll be on the lookout (hm. This section has a nautical theme. Yo ho ho, and all that) Haploidavey (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi Lptx. I'm nobodies sock, nor is anyone mine ;-) I've reverted your edit—which removed sourced content—from that article, exactly once (so far). You on the other hand are in violation of WP:3RR, and are editing that article against the prevailing editorial consensus, and are almost certainly headed for a block. Please stop. You should instead try to reach consensus on that article's talk page. Paul August☎23:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Paul August visit the talk page - this is the common concern. Since you have not visited/read the issues at talk page and trying to be armchair analyst End of the discussion.Lptx (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
In my view nothing useful was going on there, nor did it seem to be going anywhere good. Moreover I saw nothing that would require the intervention of an administrator. Paul August☎21:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for replying. Two admins weighed in and found problematic behavior. There was clutter in the back and forth, this is true. It was still unclear where it was going to go; many ANIs end up with the community deciding things (ANI is not only for admin intervention). Most importantly the behavior is continuing. Please unclose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
What behavior is continuing exactly? Diffs please. It's not clear to me what you think should happen, sanctions? That discussion seemed to have degenerated into you and Sandy bickering back and forth. And in my opinion you weren't doing yourself any good. Paul August☎12:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes as I noted there I was aware it was becoming cluttered. It is hard to understand how you could ask "what kind of behavior" if you actually read the thread. I will let this go and refile if it goes on much longer with fresh diffs. I do not think the close was appropriate but I will let this be for now. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I didn't ask "what kind of behaviour". You said "Most importantly the behavior is continuing", and I asked you to provide diffs of such "continuing" behavior, so I could understand what edits you were talking about. Could you please do that? Thanks in advance. Paul August☎15:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
This may be helpful, Paul. Here are the diffs of every edit between the time you closed the ANI, and Jytdog made this complaint to you.
SG contribs from the time of the closing of the ANI to the time of Jytdog's post at 22:17.
SandyGeorgia I am sure that Colin is grateful to you for cluttering up and derailing the ANI. The diffs show Colin continuing the campaign and attacks on Doc James; especially the comment at Doc James TP. The over-the-top edge has been toned down which is why I am not going to AN to ask for a close review; I will be refiling if Colin ramps back up. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC) (perhaps this needed clarification Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC))Reply
@Jytdog: This no longer is about the ANI close. This is now about your—so far— unubstantiated accusations.
Above, you’ve accused, presumably Colin and one might reasonably infer SandyGeorgia, of “continuing” “problematic behavior.” I’ve asked you three times to provide diffs of such “continuing” behavior, and you’ve been either unable or unwilling to do so. Such accusations against fellow editors should not be made without evidence. I will ask you again, please provide diffs.
Look, it may be that when you look at the relevant edit histories you will find you were mistaken and that no such examples of inappropriate edits exist. That’s ok, we all make mistakes. But then you owe Colin and SandyGeorgia an apology. If however you still stand by your accusations, then you need to supply diffs. Not doing so would be inappropriate, and might warrant some further action.
So your only good choices would seem to be to provide diffs, or apologize.
The world outside of WP:MED does not exist? Please check your calendar.
You could benefit from what I have been trying to tell @Jytdog: for months. Talk TO the person you have a disagreement with first, before escalating your conflicts. (Still waiting for that diff from Jytdog, above.) Ozzie, did it occur to you to check @Colin:'s talk page? And then maybe, go leave that Serial Guy a note about templating the regulars. Also, WP:AGF is a really good page. Lest subtlety is lost on you, please enjoy your April Fools' Day. It has been a matter of huge celebration on Wikipedia for years.
Hi Katolophyromai, at first glance your list looks fantastic. But yes it is well outside my area of expertise. But I might look more at it later. As to my "work" on List of Greek mythological figures, I take no credit/blame for that, as I've only made a few minor edits there. I have rewritten the introductory sections of Twelve Olympians, but I take no responsibility for the actual list entries themselves; they need to be reworked, and are especially in need of sources! Paul August☎15:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
I notice that you reverted an anonymous editor (not me) who added von Neumann to the category of combustion scientists, for lack of a source. But where, exactly, do you expect a person to place a citation, if the only thing an edit does is to add a category template? I personally found the edit to be quite reasonable when I first saw it a few days ago. Macrae's chapter 9 (The Calculating Exploder, 1937-43) has a lot to say about von Neumann's work on combustion and explosions, etc., for various government agencies. And of course, von Neumann's work on the implosion method of the plutonium bomb is quintessentially about (very rapid) combustion. So, while I will not try to revert you on this myself, I think you might want to think about putting the edit back. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
From the article (Fluid Dynamics section) -- "the discovery of the classic flow solution to blast waves, and the co-discovery of the ZND detonation model of explosives. During the 1930s, Von Neumann became an authority on the mathematics of shaped charges," etc. Is this not sufficient? Eleuther (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
What I'd really like to see is some reliable source calling von Neumann a "combustion scientist", and some mention of that in the article, before adding that category. Just because someone does work related to combustion, it doesn't necessarily make them a combustion scientist. Paul August☎16:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I've evidently encountered yet another Wikipedian-who-is-never-wrong. Discussion closed, you're not worth talking to further. Eleuther (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
To be more precise (sorry to revive this), you seem to be saying that a scientist such as von Neumann, who made basic and authoritative contributions to the science of combustion, should not be considered to be a combustion scientist, because there is no cited source that explicitly calls him a "combustion scientist." Is that right? That's nonsense. It's just you, floundering around to find a way to avoid admitting you make a mistake. Eleuther (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I would settle for a cited source which says he did combustion science. I don't know anything about "combustion science", I'm a mathematician. And I think of von Neumann as primarily a mathematician, whose mathematical work has many applications to many fields, but that doesn't make him a practitioner of each of those fields. That's just my opinion, though. I'm often wrong, and I might be wrong here. You have a different opinion. But really, neither of our opinions matter. What matters is what reliable sources say. And as an aside please stop with the personal attacks. Paul August☎19:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Okay, stupid-head, I will stop with the personal attacks. The article already describes some contributions to the science of combustion, as I already pointed out. So there's no need for another source. Instead, I think you would need to provide a source to the effect that being an "authority on the mathematics of shaped charges" does not constitute a contribution to combustion science. By this I mean some source other than your own acclaimed ignorance of the matter (I don't know anything about "combustion science"). Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've edited on here for years. I think I am starting to see why Wikipedia has difficulties getting enough editors and may not be taken seriously overall. People on here are fairly ridiculous. Bleucheeses (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Paul August. I think the CfD page is not really the proper place to pursue your beef with me. I suggest the following change. I will modify my comment to say "most of" rather than "all" (to satisfy Trovatore), and to remove the word "toxic" (for you). I will also remove the three subsequent replies, on the grounds that these are things that people don't want to have to read on a CfD page. But I will only do this if you and Trovatore agree that it's okay. I've already apologized to Trovatore for the factual error, and I apologize to you now for the use of the word "toxic." I hope that you will agree to this change. Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Paul August. I think, in general, it would be a good idea to avoid polluting other users' talk pages with your dispute with me. So I will answer here, instead of there. Nothing in my comment claimed that I was not one of the disputants (clearly I am one). And I didn't say anyone's comments should be "discounted," I was only suggesting that they should all be taken in context. Eleuther (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Eleuther, thanks for responding here, as I asked. And I'm sorry that I hadn't noticed your edit above before I replied on Trovatore's talk page. This is what you wrote: "Note that all the comments so far are by disputants in the toxic discussion re von Neumann, and so should perhaps be discounted". So you did in fact suggest that editor's comments be "discounted". Paul August☎22:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Okay, sorry, I did use the word, but nothing suggests that I meant it to exclude my own comments. (And you should say editors', not editor's -- sorry to mention it, but stuff like that bugs me.) Eleuther (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Geez, why do you go to such a convoluted effort to misread what I wrote. I was simply saying that all the comments, including my own, should be taken in the context of the dispute. Eleuther (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Eleuther: Look, perhaps that's what you meant to write, but that's not what you wrote. And I didn't misread what you wrote. I don't think calling the discussion "toxic" and saying some unspecified editors who were "disputants" in that discussion, should have their comments "discounted" could be read by anyone as anything other than as insulting. You've apologized for using the word "toxic" and I've thanked you for that—of course many other editors who see (or saw) your use of that word, will probably not see your apology. But please don't undo your apology by now saying that what you wrote wasn't insulting. Paul August☎11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Back off a bit please. I wrote that "nothing suggests that I meant it to exclude my own comments." By this, I clearly meant that nothing suggests that I meant that that my own comments were not also coming from a disputant, and so should be discounted on the same basis as the others. Your idea that I'm claiming a special status for my own comments, is false. Eleuther (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Eleuther: I'll take you at your word when you say you weren't trying to claim any special status for your comments. Fine. But can't you see how what you wrote would be interpreted that way? (I mean, one doesn't usually suggest that their own comments should be discounted) And even though you weren't claiming special status, your comment was still insulting to the other editors involved in that discussion. By the way, have you apologized to any of them? It would be a nice gesture of good will. Look, I think you are a well meaning editor, who has gotten off on the wrong foot now with several other editors. What I'm trying to do here is help you understand why, and how to avoid doing so in the future. You've apologized to me, and I've accepted your apology. I bear you no ill will. Shall we let bygones be bygones? (offers olive branch...) Paul August☎14:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
The phrase "all the comments so far" clearly includes my own comments. It's not a matter of taking me at my word. The phrase sez what it sez. It can only be interpreted otherwise by someone who is willfully looking for grounds for an attack. Eleuther (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Eleuther: So your saying it's not possible that someone might think that "all the comments do far" might mean "all the comments so far (except mine of course)"? In any case, even if one were to understand what you wrote to mean "all the comments so far (including mine)", as I said above the comment was still insulting. Paul August☎15:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
You've lost me again. Where is the insult? Is it in the use of the word "disputant?" The word is simply descriptive. Also (and you may take this as an insult if you wish), you should have written "you're" instead of "your", as the second word of your comment, if you want to be taken seriously. Eleuther (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Eleuther: The insult, as I though I'd made clear, is in calling the discussion "toxic", and by inference, at least some of the editors in that discussion. Paul August☎16:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Though? Are you so drunk you can't type? I already proposed removing the word "toxic" from the comment, with your approval, but you declined to give your approval. And anyhow, calling a dispute toxic is not an insult to any of the participants. It just means (here) that they are no longer listening to each other, but are simply exchanging impassioned assertions. Eleuther (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Eleuther: That you offered to remove "toxic" doesn't make your original statement any less insulting. What's more you're obviously now trying to be insulting (You should really take onboard WP:NPA). Paul August☎17:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Paul, please move your comment somewhere more appropriate, and I will respond to it. I should be allowed to record my vote in peace, without having it subject to attack. (Just as I should be allowed to leave a message on another user's talk page, without having it attacked.) Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm not attacking your vote. I'm commenting on it. And so it seems the most appropriate place for it. Where do you want me to move it to? Paul August☎19:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
How about here? I'll reply here, and then, if you wish, you can republish the thread somewhere else, such as in a Comment in the CfD, but please not as part of anyone's vote. Eleuther (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
The CFD page is a discussion not a vote. My comment is a reply to your comment, and is just where it ought to be. Moving it here makes no sense at all. It is intended to be read by everyone who looks at that discussion. In particular it is meant to be read by the closer of that discussion, so that they will be able to make a more informed closure. As you can see by looking at other such discussions this is standard practice. Paul August☎21:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Paul, I would welcome your response to my reply to you on the CfD page, which is where you seem to think the discussion should be taking place. (Please ignore the angry interjections by Bialy, which seem to be unrelated to the issue that's being considered.) Thanks in advance for your response. Eleuther (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Paul. I would welcome a response, regarding the meaning of WP:CATDEF, before the CfD discussion comes to a close. Can you do that? Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Eleuther, I think the meaning of CATDEF is clear, and I think I've said all I need to say there about it. I don't understand your argument. But I think you are misunderstanding what CATDEF says. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree? I will offer here an analogy for you think about. While there are certainly such things as the science of lightbulbs, and the science of telephones, would you think it appropriate to categorize Thomas Edison as a "lightbulb scientist" or Alexander Graham Bell as a "telephone scientist"? And if not why not? In any case I will try to write up a response for you there. Paul August☎11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Paul, there's nothing inherently wrong with the term "lightbulb scientist" -- its meaning is plain, anyone reading it would understand what it means. And if Edison isn't one, who is? If such a category existed on Wikipedia, Edison would obviously qualify for it. I agree that such a category probably shouldn't exist, but not because the term itself is somehow illegitimate, or because of the paucity of sources describing people with the exact words "lightbulb scientist." (If there's language in WP:CAT that supports such grounds, can you please point it out? Please please? I honestly can't find it.) In other words, the category doesn't seem to violate WP:CAT, per se. However, it would seem to violate WP:OVERCAT, and perhaps others. (I will now embark on my response on the CfD page.) Eleuther (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think most people would read "lightbulb scientist" as naming a profession. In which case, CATDEF would require sources assigning that profession, by name, to Edison. Because of this natural reading as naming a profession, naming the category of scientists whose work is related to lightbulbs as "lightbulb scientists", would be confusing, at best. (See my reply at the CFD). Paul August☎13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Paul, thanks. I myself think most people are not fools. There's no real profession of "combustion scientist." At least there's no support on Wikipedia for the existence of such a profession, that I know of. There's certainly no article with that title. However, both combustion and scientist are long-established terms, with long WP articles supporting them. So I think that most people would read the term in the plain and obvious way, as a descriptive term combining these two long-established concepts. No currently paid-up membership card is required. Eleuther (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Where you made your proposal please look above it to where I added in a hatnote "Actual dialog in full, no selective editing". Not much to read. People seem to be taking things out of context. Was it just that one comment that irritates people so, or was there something more? DreamFocus12:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Not just one comment. At the beginning of the section Hijiri 88 gives diffs for a dozen examples, of personal attacks you've made against him. Have you read them? I've seen others. In addition there is this dicussion, linked to by Tarage. Paul August☎17:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
That was 8 years ago. Nothing to do with anything now. And I did listen to people who had valid complaints and reworded things. Anyway, I didn't respond to every single thing Hijiri said, because I assumed people would just click on the link and read things in context and realize it all nonsense. Most of them in the first section of his complaints are from the same conversation I put in the hatnote and did clarify.
As for the next section, if someone shows up at that many AFDs and elsewhere just to repeat the same lies about someone and/or a wikiproject, refusing to stop doing that, of course I respond to him. And he followed me around constantly, even yesterday after starting the recent bit, he decides to look up an article I edited previously and remove information I had added about their sales figures [106], I then going and finding a reference for updated sales figures to put back there. He has never edited that article before and the edit summary he put there isn't something he'd usually do, not how he wrote it. Would me getting links to over a dozen places where he showed up after I edited an article just to edit after me, make any difference in this case? Also one of his links [107] show me telling him off for stalking me and then making a comment on my talk page just to irritate me I assume. I responded to ask him to stop stalking, he clearly violating WP:stalking there. I also mentioned in my reply his edit summary he used when proposed deleting a perfectly valid article of mine [108], he making ridiculous claims there, which in the AFD discussion everyone agreed it passed the WP:GNG, and he withdrew his nomination. He has on multiple times claimed it was WP:Pointy when in fact it was not. He has stated he claims I did it to take deleted material from the other article and put it there, which makes no sense at all, saying that in the withdraw statement of the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai Grandma, and even discussing this on a talk page [109]. He seems to believe people are out to get him. DreamFocus18:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is like being thanked by an ordinary editor! ;-)
But seriously, your change to R & R sent me down a style rabbit hole. To capitalize, or not to capitalize, that is the question: Whether 'tis proper...er(?) in the article to write "River X" or "river X". Is there an MOS entry on point here? Also, is the lower case river specific to this case? I did a google scholar search and found examples of both. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Anti-Hellenic actions in all articles of all the Battles between Greeks (Macedonians and Athenians) and Persians or Romans. The anti-Hellenicists claim that there was no Greece back then but only Athens or Macedonia, meaning that there is a possibility Athens or Macedonia could not be Greek states. They are doing propaganda.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Paul August , I am not an expert of Wikipedia , so I do not know if this will work. My name is Cosimo Franco (called Franco ) Manni, PhD student in theology at King's College London and I would like to understand why your initial lines of 'Unified Field Theory' entry on Wikipedia were taken off, and if you had a conscious memory of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason when you wrote them. My email address is : cosimo.manni@kcl.ac.uk.
Thanks. Kind regards Framco
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
...I am going to add to it. Following on from this and then this I wonder if you as an ex(?) Arb have the time to check over DanielPenfield's contributions and presence and compare them to a certain Betacommand? I have the same sense of unease as I had with Wierwith. In reading the December 201 discussions you were part of, I note that sock activity/admission was an area of contention. I am, myself, far too away from the project to remember how to do such stuff - it took me most of an afternoon to get to this point - and, honestly, I do not have the stomach for it. Anyhoo, thanks for reading. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Massimo_Chiacchio_1997/Archive
Hello, can you help me to delete this discussion, I am the character in question and I had created many Wikipedia accounts in the past and in this discussion someone mentioned my name with my date of birth and appears on search engines, someone can give me a hand to prevent my first and last name from appearing here? by Max 15:59, 2 september 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.201.200 (talk)
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Paul,
Thank you for your comment. I do agree that the changes made to the Thucydides article should be discussed on the talk page and I wanted to reach out and hopefully come to a consensus on this. I would like to mention that the statements I provided were actually taken from a scholarly analysis on the History provided by Moses Finley, am accredited scholar, and all were cited. In the spirit of sharing knowledge, I don't think there is any harm in providing an expert analysis or another perspective on the subject. If anything, I feel it gives a more wholesome understanding to a reader that might not have as much exposure to this topic. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Thanks.
Nbhard (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi Nbhard. Thanks for being willing to discuss this. I'm familiar with the work you cited. The most serious issue I had with your edits were that they copied long passages directly from the cited work without quotations. This is potentially a serious problem, raising possible questions of copyright infringement and/or plagiarism. If you want to add content similar to what you added, you either need to use quotations, or rephrase the content in your own words. See for example Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Paul August☎13:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi Paul, thank you for bringing this to my attention as I do agree this could be a potential problem. I will be sure to use quotations and or summarize the information with originality in the future. Thanks Nbhard (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello,
I tried to add a section on the Gaia page for "references in popular culture." You reverted my change about Gaia's appearance as a character name in Captain Planet. I know that many other mythological pages have some kind of section that shows how that character or character's name has had an impact on popular culture, and I think this is a useful section on those pages-- especially when trying to teach young people about the relevance of mythology in today's world. I wonder if you'd consider reverting the changes.
@Bdicoccosix: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, in order for something to warrant mention in an article, it must possess long-term encyclopedic notability, meaning that we need to have reasonable cause to believe that the entry will still be notable centuries or even millennia from now. There are some things that possess obvious long-term notability, such as the portrayal of Gaia in Hesiod's Theogony, which has remained notable for the past 2,500 years and will almost certainly still be notable a hundred years from now. Other items of information, such as the entry you added about Gaia's appearance in Captain Planet, are more dubious. The best measures of encyclopedic notability are: 1) The subject of the entry must have significantly altered popular perception of the subject of the article. 2) The subject must be discussed in reliable, scholarly sources about the subject of the article. Most "In popular culture" entries lack encyclopedic notability. Furthermore, all information added to Wikipedia must be cited to reliable, secondary, scholarly sources. Captainplanetandtheplaneteers.shoutwiki.com is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. I hope this answer is helpful and that it alleviates some of your confusion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I see what you're saying, but is there no place to list modern references to Greek mythology on Wikipedia? I figured stating it at the end did not detract from the rest of the article. I get that the source that I provided was garbage and I apologize for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdicoccosix (talk • contribs) 12:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Bdicoccosix: I see that you have added back the mention of the Captain Planet character Gaia, with a better source (thanks for that, you may want to add that source to the article on the TV show). However, while that source is sufficient to establish the existence of the character in that TV show, it says nothing at all regarding the significance of that cartoon character for the mythological Gaia. Here are some quotes from relevant Wikipedia policies:
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. (WP:PROPORTION, as of 09:11, 2 October 2018)
Unless you can find a reliable source which discusses the significance of this cartoon character for the mythological character, I think that the mention of the cartoon character should be removed.
There is no specific timeframe. But it has to be enough to have been discussed and accepted by scholars as at least a significant minority opinion. Paul August☎15:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
There is no other opinion beside the one I have quoted. Since over the past 14 years. Science Advances is, just btw, a peer-reviewed journal, which was even quoted by a Ph.D. scholar in the Biology Department at Grand Valley State University. More than this is not possible in a genetics topic. The only opinion so far recorded was that of Davis-Kimball & Joachim Burger. There was even a tv documentary, first broadcasted by the German state television ZDF in 2004. There is just a tiny detail with this. The funding for new expeditions has been discontinued and the topic was kept silent. I'll take this to the board.--Alperich (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm not disputing whether the sources your trying to use are reliable or not. That's the question you asked at the "Reliable sources/Noticeboard". Rather it's a question of weight. Is that 2018 study significant enough to warrant mention in the article. If other writers begin to discuss the article in their works then it might become noteworthy enough to include but I don't don't think it is now. Paul August☎22:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
A new study by Krzewińska 2018, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances, sparked a new debate on the origins of the Amazons. The study revealed that Amazons may trace their ancestry through female lines to an east Eurasian origin. [1]"
1. It "revealed that Amazons may trace their ancestry through female lines to an east Eurasian origin" But I see no mention
2. It "sparked a new debate on the origins of the Amazons.
But the Krzewińska 2018 article, makes no mention of Amazons, so it can't be used to support ether of these two things. So leaves just the Nikitin's article "Solving the origins of ancient Eurasian Nomadic Warriors with Genetics". Where was this article peer-reviewed? And what is the evidence that Nikitin's assertions are significant enough to warrant mention in the article. And if, as is being asserted, the Krzewińska article "sparked a new debate on the origins of the Amazons" where is this debate? Published evidence for such a debate would be useful. Paul August☎18:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Regarding point 1: You have to prove that Sarmatian female warriors are not the Amazons first.
No the same problems, since your comments above don't adequately address the problems I've mentioned. Simply appearing on a university web page does not mean it's been peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed usually means being published in a peer reviewed journal. But even if Nikitin's article was peer-reviewed I don't find it sufficient to support the assertions being made about Krzewińska article. And even if we had sufficient justification for the assertions made about all this, it is entirely too recent for there have been sufficient time for the scholarly consensus to have accepted all this as true. And even if scholarly consensus had accepted all this as true, just because something is true, does not mean that it is significant enough to warrant mention in the article. Paul August☎19:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is not an interpretation but a direct quote, "it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly." This applies not only to one deciding how to live but to others, too, with whom he interacts. He benefits by others treating him better than they would if they did not live pleasantly. Kolyvansky (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. It's been a long time, I think, since we've spoken. I hope everything is going well. Years ago, you participated in some of the initiatives intended to resolve the problem of a serial policy violator. For some time now, I've been having trouble with an editor who's been exhibiting similar persistent behavior, and he seems to be escalating. I could really use your help. I've outlined the evidence of his behavior here. A summary list of his behavior is located near the bottom of that post, beneath the heading "Summary", in case you want to read that first. If you could offer your objective opinion on that evidence, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Good day sir! I would like to ask what is the name of the site(s) or book(s) where I can find sources related to 1. Scholia on Argonautica, 2. Scholia on Iliad, 3. Scholia on Odyssey, 4. Tzetzes on Lycophron, 5. Eustathius on Iliad, and etc. I already searched the internet but couldn't find where these sources came from because I wanted to check or cross-reference the said authors for verification purposes in improving the pages related to Greek mythology. Thank you and hoping for your response. Markx121993 (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, as far as I know, none of these are available online. You might try asking this question here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. I think that most of these scholia are only available in Greek. A useful guide to various scholia is Ancient Greek Scholarship by Elenor Dickey available online here: [111]. Good luck. If you find any good online sources for any of these, please let me know.
By the way, if you use a source that cites these scholia, you need to cite that source, and not the scholia itself, unless you've also consulted the scholia directly yourself, and have independently verified that the scholia says what your original source says it does. So for example, if Writer A says that, according Scholia B, Mary was the daughter of John. Then it's OK to write:
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
Hello Paul August, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Everedux (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Take two before retiring.
I'd rather take …
Temple of Hera
Temple of Apollo
Temple of Athena.jpg)
.jpg)
Done
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Template:Rf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eagle (Roman military standard)#Second survey. —Sowlos 09:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Merchant of Venice may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on </noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}§ion=new my operator's talk page.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
