User talk:Paul August/Archive11

Paranormal arbitration

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

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

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

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

Mayan Muni

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

Question

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

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

The Rest of the Story

Hello Paul,

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

Thanks!

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

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

FYE (For Your Entertainment)

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

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

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

-) Paul August ☎ 18

01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Gregbard 03:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV

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

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

Thanks. Progress looks promising.

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

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

And so it was. Thanks for all your help.

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

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Paul August', from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! User:Paul August (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

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

Thanks!

RFAR Piotrus

Hi, Paul. I don't know if you've noticed that Irpen has posted a suggestion for a "novel solution" in the Piotrus RFAR?[1] I've been discussing this with Irpen, and he has obviously given it a lot of thought. And compare his contributions ! Piotrus and Ghirla have commented, but I worry that the arbs may not notice the post, where Irpen has placed it. It would be great if you have time to read it, and, if you like, comment on it. There are some truly excellent content contributors involved in the case, as of course you know, and I would love to see some—any—solution implemented whereby we have a chance to avoid losing one or more of them. Best, Bishonen | talk 10:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

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

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

Advice as to how to proceed on the article on Food Irradiation.

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

Elagabalus

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

Er

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

WikiProject Logic

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

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

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

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

Mild refactoring in Talk:Antiderivative

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

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

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

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

Your questions

Dear Paul,

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

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

G'day

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

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

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

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

Request for Arb on Me and Chrisjnelson

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

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

Smile

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson

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

Journal of Scientific Exploration

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

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

Email for you

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

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

Some guy

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

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

Merger proposed: Medicamina Faciei Feminae → Ovid

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

How many empty sets?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sets

Hi Paul,

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

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

An apology

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

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