User talk:Paul August/Archive14

Watchlist request

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)

My Neighbor Totoro

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)

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)

I'm glad to hear that. Thank you very much. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

forgotten signature

You forgot to sign your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Induced homomorphism. I could sign it for you but it always looks better if the vote is signed by the original poster. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've signed on the dotted line ;-) Paul August ☎ 13:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism on your User page

Reverted vandalism on your User page, just to let ya' know :-) . see ya'. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Grant Napear Protection

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)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case on Homeopathy

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)

Reverting my edits

Why do you keep on reverting my additions to the invalid proofs page?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.38.243 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they don't make any sense to me. They look like vandalism. Paul August ☎ 03:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm they were a new a new proof that X=Y based upon the sumation of all numbers from x to infinity

something like $\sum _{n=5}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}=\infty$
$\sum _{n=6}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}=\infty$
$5+\sum _{n=6}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}=\sum _{n=5}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}$
$5+\sum _{n=6}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}-\infty =\sum _{n=5}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}-\infty$
$5=0$

Proposed decision

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)  Done

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)

Homeopathy case

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)

Requests page

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)

Sorry

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)

Boston Massacre

Why the quotation in the Depictions section are in bold letters? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The long bolded text begining "THE HORRID MASSACRE ..." is apparently the title of the pamphlet being quoted from. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Active or inactive

Are you active or inactive on the Homepathy case? Please respond at WP:AC/C/N. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Active. I've responded there. Paul August ☎ 12:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for review

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)

Also, please be so good as to review User:Sarvagnya's recent edits, as I believe he is once again displaying the kind of behavior which prompted the wikiquette alert and failed RfC. Also, the now-deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarvagnya should be of interest regarding his earlier activity. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Appeal - PLEASE HELP

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

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)

Thanks

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)