User talk:Paul August/Archive3

Baire space

The rewording is good, except that in my experience "relative topology" is more usual than "subspace topology" --Trovatore 1 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I'm glad you liked the rewording. Feel free to change "subspace" back to "relative". I changed it to "subspace" because that seemed to me like the more common and more likely to be understood term, especially by the general reader. That this is so is confirmed somewhat by the fact that Wikipedia's article is called "subspace topology" and "relative topology" redirects to it. However, I've just noticed that Willard's General Topology uses "relative", Bourbaki's General Topology, uses "induced" and Steen and Seebach's Counterexamples in Topology has "... is called the induced (or relative or subspace) topology ...". In my experience all three terms are (or were) common, but It has been many years since I was a practicing topologist (or mathematician for that matter), so I may be unfamiliar with current usage. Are you saying that you think "relative" is more usual in the context of the Baire space, or in general? I think I will ask some of my topologist friends what they think. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia and our Mathematics Project — Paul August ☎ July 1, 2005 13:43 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics

Hi Paul, there seem to be a lot of requests with very few google hits. I started removeing some of them, but this may not have been such a good idea. Any thoughts? --MarSch 1 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Well I guess I'd be inclined to just leave them. Somebody thought they were important, and Google isn't all that reliable as a measure of notability, and besides they do little harm there. I would just remove those which have articles. Paul August ☎ July 1, 2005 22:20 (UTC)

Your sig

Are you aware that your sig contains an extraneous space after your name in the link to your user page? (...August|Paul August ]] [[User_talk...) - dcljr (talk) 2 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)

I had just noticed this myself recently. I've changed it now. Paul August ☎ July 2, 2005 02:46 (UTC)

List of mathematical functions

Hi Paul. You are doing great work at List of mathematical functions. However, I am surprised to see things like injective function and additive function appearing there. To me, they seem more like properties of functions than functions themselves. Listing them also seems at odds with the introduction of the article (though we can of course always change the introduction). I am reluctant to remove them and destroy your hard work, but perhaps you could give it a thought? I think that at the least, they should be listed in a separate section. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jitse. As I added these functions, I have considered this question, although, the more I think about it, the more I think that the "distinction" between these "functions" and the others is hard to make clearly. Most of the entries in this list represent classes of functions, and so could be considered a property rather than a function. If we were to move these entries into a separate section, I'd be interested to know what you think we should call it, and which entries would you move there? In any case, these "functions" belong somewhere, in this list — or perhaps some other list. Feel free to move these to whatever section you like. I'd be very interested in your (and others) thoughts as to how best to organize this list. As I'm not sure yet about this, for now I'm going to concentrate on adding things, and worry about organization later. Paul August ☎ 13:17, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am satisfied if you considered the issue I raised. I realize that even names like Airy function do not refer to a unique function, but even though it's not a black-and-white distinction, I still think things like monotonicity should go in a separate section. I might do so some time (if you don't beat me to it). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Bach greatness

Hello. Don't get me wrong, I find Johann Sebastian Bach to be among the most significant, intellectually stimulating and influential too. But what does "great" mean, exactly, in that first sentence? If it means what I've just said in my previous sentence, then the article already says that - it's the next sentence! If it has other meanings, let's add them. Also, I really do think "of all time" is redundant. Please would you look at a discussion over at the composers project? Best. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Robert. "One of the greatest" (the article doesn't use the word "great") is an abbreviation (more or less) for "one of the two or three (or four? or five?) most significant, intellectually stimulating, influential, popular and enjoyed". And the next sentence: "His works, noted for their intellectual depth, technical command, and artistic beauty, have provided inspiration to nearly every composer in the European tradition, from Mozart to Schoenberg", doesn't say that — it is a much weaker statement. We could say something like that explicitly, but at the cost of brevity and conciseness and besides, everyone knows what "one of the greatest" means. They and everyone else use the expression all the time. Saying he was the "one of the greatest" represents an attempt at ranking, in this case, composers. While our modern bias is that such attempts are somewhat dubious, this is nevertheless, something that people (scholars as well as everyday folk) have continually done. And there is considerable consensus as to which composers rank highest: Bach, Beethoven and Mozart (among perhaps a couple of others). Such statements are ubiquitous. Our article should reflect that, just like Briatannica, which uses almost the exact phrase we do. Paul August ☎ 17:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, yes I suppose technically "of all time" is redundant. But stylistically, it or something like it (e.g. "who ever lived") is required. When reading "one of the greatest ..." one expects a qualification (e.g. "of the nineteenth century"). Paul August ☎ 17:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some indication of Bach's significance stronger than that second sentence, as it is encyclopedic. I'm still not happy with the word "greatest", because it's vague - and as you say it's an abbreviation, I'd really much rather include a modification of your expansion of the abbreviation above (I may try one day when I've more time). I don't accept that "everyone knows what it means" - "greatest" means different things to different people, and there's too much of the peacock and the "top ten" about it. And Britannica doing something is by itself no reason for Wikipedia to follow suit. For now I modified the page according to this bit of NPOV policy. Hope it's acceptable. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I like your modification, and I especially like that you were able to find a reasonable source. Yes "greatest" does mean (slightly) different things to different people, but in this case, that is part of its virtue. Nearly everyone agrees that "Bach was one of the greatest" but they won't all agree on why. Trying to replace it with some more precise statement will lead to problems. Sometimes (like in diplomacy) a bit of ambiguity is a good thing. And yes it doesn't behoove us to blindly follow Britannica, but of course we should pay close attention to what they do, they are still the gold standard. (I'm going to copy this discussion to Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and point to it in the discussion going on at composers project) Paul August ☎ 14:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Achaeus (General)

Thanks for sending me your message and for your corrections to the article. I was asking myself: if you incorporate text from more than one source should I template both? You see, I incorporated text from 3 sources in an article i wrote before. A smaller question; why did you change the link for Polybius. Because my source was 1922-27, while your's is 1867, so public domain (even if I believe that also the other is). Thanks in advance for your response. You see, I'm a newbie and I still do a lot of errors. (unsigned comment by Aldux at 18:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC))

Hi Aldux. The templates are only intended to be used if you copy text verbatim. If you copy from more than one source then you should mention all of them (using templates if they exist). In any case every work used should be listed in the "References" section, whether or not a "This article incorporates text from ..." template was used.

As regards the Polybius reference change, it had nothing to do with dates or being in the public domain, which of course isn't an issue so long as you are not copying text. Either your Edward's Polybius, or my Shuckburgh's Polybius would be ok as a reference. However, it is good where possible to give an "on-paper" reference with complete bibliographic information (e.g. translator, publisher, year etc.), which yours didn't, and I had that info handy for mine. (One of the virtues of "on-paper", is that there will probably be a printed version of Wikipedia someday.) It is of course also very nice to have an online version of the reference, which both our references have. But I much prefer the Perseus site ;-) it is easier to use and it has a lot more linked information. And you can provide links to the exact passages cited. (For an example see Demetrius of Pharos#Notes) In any case we can list both if you want. Or if you just want to provide an online link to that site, without listing it in the references section, you can add an "External links" section, and put it there.

By the way, you can sign and time stamp your posts by typing four tildes like so: "~~~~". Happy editing ;-)

Paul August ☎ 19:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for all the corrections you made to the articles on which I've worked; I'm sorry I keep doing a lot of errors, but I'm trying to improve :-) And if you ever think that my prose's horrible, don't take problems in mending it; English is only my second language. Bye! Aldux 12:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I don't mind at all trying to help a bit with the great contributions you are making. And you do seem to be picking up things quickly. Keep up the good work! Paul August ☎ 19:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Image Seleucus I Nicator

I dont now. I took the picture from livius.com. and uploaded last year. I think that it is probably the bust of Attalus I because it is replaced on livius.com. with another picture. I think this picture sould be delated and removed from page Seleucus I Nicator and put another. (sorry for bed english) Boris Živ

"Definition" of Math

Dear Paul,

In my oppinion, the current article "Mathematics" really can not be improved, since it has practically no content. General words like "the study of quantity, structure, space and change" may be applied to physics or engineering or almost anything as well, and give no impact into distinguishing math activity. What are the means of this study? Computors (quantity), telescopes (space), movie-making (change)?? What are the objects? "Structure" of what?? Next sentence "It has historically developed ..." definitely pertains to "History" section and should not be used in the initial description of a thing. The rest of the article has nothing to do with the description, initiated in the first paragraph.

This was my reason for replacing this article, and this certainly could not "improve" it.

Filling up a sentence with a list of hyperlinks can not release us from the obligation to add some meaning to it. Just imagine yourself being an "ordinary person", who wants to know about mathematics. What can you add to your impression after reading such article?

As for "discussion", then what do you suggest? Just to go to forum and ask, if anybody objects againts my thinking of math as "blah-blah-blah", then to wait for the answer? And then the procedure of collective voting, counting voices, etc.? Judging by their first reaction, the people who happened to inhabit the Mathematics section of Wikipedia first, have a strong intention to keep their positions and, unfortunately, rarely had a chance to work in pure math seriously.

A reasonable way to manage this problem would be to give a list of alternative versions of articles on each subject and to let readers (not the authors) to decide and evaluate. Otherwise, if you concentrate on maintaining the interests of these first-comers, I can predict you having neither readers, nor interesting authors. Learning about math from dictionaries (as Mr. Alexandrov), they will stick forever to the "science-not science" discussion.

But thank you for invitation anyway. I was really very anthusiastic, when I found this Wikipedia activity, but the reality seems to be far from stimulating. (Vikvik)

Hi Vikvik. I think it is difficult to define something like mathematics. There has been considerable discussion and dispute about how best to do it. And many smart people and knowledgeable mathematicians have taken part in this discussion. It isn't surprising to me that we are struggling to come up with a generally acceptable version of the article. It might be instructive to read through some of the previous versions of the article.

If you think that the article is beyond improving, then I would suggest that you say why you think so on the article's talk page, and offer an alternative version on a subpage of your userpage. Then see if you can generate a consensus for some (or all) of your version. For better or worse, Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and for a change to "stick" it has to have the support of other editors of the article. (By the way there seems to be the start of a constructive discussion on your talk page — you might want to continue that discussion on Talk:Mathematics to enlist the comments of a wider group of editors.)

You might want to suspend judgment on Wikipedia, until you have a bit more experience working with it. A good way to gain that experience might be to be a bit less ambitious in your editing. Start with some smaller edits, less likely to be contentious, to perhaps a less high-profile article. Doing this will help you build credibility and good working relationships with other editors, something which will make your editing experience more pleasant and productive. You also might want to introduce yourself a bit, on your talk page. What is your background? Are you a mathematician? What are your areas of interest and expertise?

Regards. (By the way you can sign and timestamp your posts, by typing four tildes i.e. "~~~~".) — Paul August ☎ 03:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Threat?

Is this a threat, [1], and if so can you please tell user Miskin to stop threating me, it is unpleasant. Since you are a administrator can you give him a warning on the talk page to stop with such statements. Many thanks in advance! --Albanau 03:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Class (set theory)

Hi - I am Edward Buckner, (Wiki user dbuckner). You removed my link to an article on the history of the word "class" on above page, because "unauthorative". What is the definition of unauthorative? Are there any factual inaccuracies in the article? Or would the same article with the same content be acceptable from some "authoritative" source?

Dr. Edward Buckner

Hi Edward. When I said that the link was unauthoritative, I wasn't referring to the quality of the article, which as far as I can tell seems ok. Rather I was trying to express my concern about the lack of apparent reputability of the author and/or publisher of the article. From looking at that page, there is no way to determine if the author/publisher has any particular authority or reputability at all. I would be more comfortable with a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journal. I am also more comfortable when a link like that is made by someone other than the page's author. However if anyone puts back the link I won't remove it again. Paul August ☎ 03:36, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

DBuckner

I think that User:Dbuckner is the same person as the Dean Buckner who used to be a regular contributor to the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list. If so, he's a knowledgeable contributor on the history and philosophy of logic, but one with certain biases. His editing has generally brought good content to WP (I like his contributions to History of logic in particular), and I think we should be encouraging him.

I had a look at the links that he added to the pages: they are of unpublished works, but seem to be of high quality. I don't really know what the criteria is to qualify as an external link; I've spent too much time trying to find good guidance on this. I'd elect to leave them, provided: (1) there aren't any more authoritative online sources available, and (2) they are linked to from just the most appropriate article. --- Charles Stewart 19:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Charles. Paul August ☎ 03:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Removed links

Thanks for the comments. I've made many more contributions than those parts of "history of logic" (which is terrible in its present state, and deserves more work than I jave time to give). For example, Zermelo Set Theory, Ontological Commitment, Plural Quantification, Term Logic, Unity of the Proposition, Ernst Schroeder, Empty names &c. Also many biographies of modern philosophers such as Boolos, Kenny, Sainsbury.

I have "proper" published work (some of which is linked to in Wikipedia) but it seems absurd to allow a link to my published works but not to "unpublished". Why is my website "unpublished" btw – you mean "peer-reviewed" surely?

Yes I am the "Dean Buckner" who contributed to FOM, and yes I have biases. I hope none of these have protruded into Wikipedia or indeed any of the material that I have linked to. The piece on "sets" is simply a collection of quotes and sources, as is the "infinity" source page, with no point of view or bias. The "existential import" piece is simply a correction of a common fallacy about Boole (the so-called "Boolean Interpretation"). I have the authority of Burris on this, and also Church (see the references). Btw the piece I reference by Burris is not "published". Shall we remove this, even though by a noted historian of logic?

The great virtue of the web is the access it gives to unpublished material (by famous and not-so-famous). The idea of banning links to commercially unpublished material is absurd (and gives a monopoly to commercial publishers). Remove a link to poor quality stuff by all means. But as none of the pages I have contributed directly to Wikipedia have been removed (indeed most are in exactly the state I left them), why do the same in effect to a link?

User:Dbuckner Dean Edward Buckner

For my part, I would not be in favor of "banning links to commercially unpublished material". But as I said above, I am somewhat uncomfortable with links by unknown (to me at least) authors to self-published works. I don't think that it is unreasonable for Wikipedia to be concerned about the reputability of the authors and the publishers of material it links to. Paul August ☎ 16:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

links

You say "I don't think that it is unreasonable for Wikipedia to be concerned about the reputability of the authors and the publishers of material it links to."

Yet you said you had no concerns about the quality of the piece! You are saying, in effect, that a well written and accurate piece is not eligible to be linked to, unless the author has "reputability".

In any case, I have published material, on and off the web (check in Notre Dame Philosophy reviews, or in back numbers of *Analysis*. My work is referenced by a number of contemporary philosophers.

But this should not matter. The pieces I linked to were harmless summaries of other existing work. If you read the piece

http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.com/cantor/Eximport.htm

you will see it is mostly excerpts and quotations. Much of it was the result of discussions on the Historia Mathematica list server.

And I don't understand why you deleted the link to this piece, and not the others. The class (set theory) page has a specific reference to the problem of "set" versus "class" to which the piece is highly relevant.

I know you said you would not object to replacing the link. But I'm more concerned about the principle of banning links to material which is accurate and (reasonably well-written) but which lacks perceived "reputability".

1. Quality of presentation 2. Accuracy 3. Interest & relevance to subject matter of linked-to Wiki page 4. Verifiability

I add the last because you probably would not want even a well-known reputable writer submitting a proof or theory that was untested and required long work to verify. Whereas if someone says that the German for "set" is "Menge" or that Jourdain translated "Menge" by "aggregate", this should be the work of a moment.

Is this something we can take to arbitration?

E.B.

Hi Edward. What exactly do you want to take to arbitration? If you are simply concerned about affecting Wikipedia's policy on external links, you can raise and discuss that issue here: WP:VPP. Paul August ☎ 15:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hihi - thanks, yes, it's just the policy - why not.

Whooops

Sorry, the page I had meant to reference was this one

http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.com/cantor/Classes.htm

The link to the other one, strangely (for it is more contentious) was not removed!

EB

Prescription

• 
  Take two before retiring.
• 
  I'd rather take …
• 
  … two of these

That's all of 'em

[2] --R.Koot 16:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahh ... Thanks. Learn something new everyday ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Mathematical reviews

Did you miss my request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics that some admin move Mathematical reviews to Mathematical Reviews as it is the title of a journal (see Talk:Mathematical reviews), do you not have time, or do you disagree? (feel free to ignore this message if you do not have time) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I never saw that request. I've moved the page. Feel free to ask me personally next time. I'm happy to help. (Of course I'd could always nominate you for Admin … ) Paul August ☎ 23:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. I should have seen that parenthetical remark coming … I am rapidly running out of excuses. I'm having some strange technical problems and RfA is rather full at the moment, but once these issues are resolved, I'll gladly accept any nomination. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The technical problems disappeared as suddenly as they came, so I have no excuse left. I'm willing to face the critism of RfA if nominated. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

about the definition of "Mythology"

Hi Paul, I thought you might be interested in this discussion.

(PS - The system is suggesting that you archive part of your talk page as I write this.) -- llywrch 18:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Natalee Holloway vandalism

Wow, you are *fast*. 10 seconds between vandal's change and your revert. Someday I'll have to get that powerful revert tool. MicahMN | Talk 00:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

He/she seems to have given up for a while. Paul August ☎ 01:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sigmund Frued, William Shakespeare and Julius Caesar

Greetings,

I am a bit puzzled over your revert on the bisexual people list. Could you please explain. Sigmund Frued, William Shakespeare and Julius Caesar were all bisexuals. 70.57.82.114 04:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What are your sources for such claims? Paul August ☎

See their respective articles.

• Frued: His psychological theories said all humans are bisexual
• Shakespeare: In sonnet twenty he says he is sexually excited by a boy
• Caesar: It is well-known that he had anal sex with King Nicomedes

So of the above three, historians agree that Caesar had homosexual sex, while on the other two they do not agree that they had such sex, but they do agree that they had the sexual attractions. And under the definition of bisexual all you need is the attractions, for example a homosexual can be celibate, but that does not change that he is homosexual. 70.57.82.114 05:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I originally removed these additions you made to the list while doing "vandalism patrol". I apologize as it seems obvious to me now that they weren't "vandalism". So please accept my apologies. However, I've removed again Julius Caesar and Sigmund Freud (someone else removed William Shakespeare). For my reasoning please see the talk page: Talk:List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. I'd be happy to discuss this further there. Perhaps you can persuade me or others that I'm wrong. Paul August ☎ 18:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Sure we can discuss it. :) 70.57.82.114 20:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

See the talk page, I have finished responding. 70.57.82.114 21:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

Paul, thank you for supporting my adminship, I'm glad you didn't miss out on it! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 19:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad too. I'm sure you will be a great admin. It's nice to know some of the good guys. Paul August ☎ 19:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Don't look too closely

Oh, noes!!! There is something wrong with your eyes??? ;-) Func( t, c, e,  ) 17:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

First, let me say thank you for taking the time and effort to help clear out the backlog at WP:RM.

Now some comments. It is not necessary to strike (i.e.<s>) out completed requests. RM is not logged, so once a request is dealt with it can simply be removed. Secondly, when completing a move, it is customary to remove the {{move}} template from the talk page hosting the discussion, and to subst {{moved}} or {{notmoved}} to the end of the votes, as a way of closing the discussion.

Again, thanks for the help. Dragons flight 23:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks, for the pointers. As I suppose you noticed, I've only just started doing these, the last couple of days. I used the strike outs because that was what some other admins had done. Also it seemed like it might give others an opportunity to "review" what i had done, so as to make sure I was doing everything correctly — which as it turns out I wasn't ;-) — I had been removing the "move" templates, but I didn't know about the "moved"/"notmoved" templates. I will use them from now on. Again thanks. Paul August ☎ 23:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about the review, if you ever fumble things too badly, you can always be sure that someone will show up to complain about it.  ;-) I have also posted this same message with another admin that has recently started closing votes. I believe he is the one you are refering to as also using strike-outs. Dragons flight 00:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Farewell Fil

And our world loses a little lustre. —Theo (Talk) 16:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Paul August ☎ 16:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

But it is brightened a little by your daft edit summary about the section heading. —Theo (Talk) 17:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well you may have misread my "daft" edit summary. I meant that I was "so sad" about Fil, that in my sadness (and haste), I had forgotten to make a section heading. I see now that It could also be read a couple of other ways, one that that it was "so sad" that I had forgotten, or I was "so sad" because I had forgotten. I find all this, including your "daft" remark above amusing, and so I am, if only a little, less sad. Thanks Theo. Paul August ☎ 18:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I read it as so distressed that you could no longer function adequately: a delicious overstatement of your misery. Anyway, now that you have sugar for your sugar things must have a different perspective. I could at this point start a rant about taking responsibility for your own life … how nobody can make you do anything with speech or text … how establishing autonomy is a first step to self-actualisation … but as I type I am listening to Ellington's A-train because someone mentioned it in the pub. And while we talk of influence: go to The Coop and buy Mirsky Dante, Eros & Kabbalah ISBN 0815630271. It will not help with the Great Project but it should afford you much plesaure. —Theo (Talk) 23:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Point (topology)

Your edit of Point (geometry) makes the redirect of Point (topology) acceptable. I still think the encyclopedia would be better off without Point (topology) at all, but this makes it acceptable to me. Go ahead and re/revert, with my compliments. -- Arthur Rubin 20:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok I will. Yes it is not a particularly useful article. But then it is only a redirect and redirects don't have to be particularly useful ;-). Paul August ☎ 20:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for nomination

Thank you for a nomination so glowing that it embarrassed me. Even Boothy did not dare to oppose. Now I can finally delete all those category theory articles that I don't understand. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome Jitse, your adminship and everything I said was well-deserved. And if you delete any category theory articles I'll have you shot at dawn. Paul August ☎ 02:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

compromise on Mythology article

I think your compromise version is alright too. What annoys me most is that I already had compromised with them by allowing their definition in but would not let them erase the definition, and especially the aprt that myths are believed to be true. If they take that out then the whole thing is botched, as it's missing the most important part, and then everyone will start putting fiction back into the article as if it were myth (some old version of thea rticle were really bad) and doing the same in other articles. AS it is, most of the mythology-related articles are crammed full of fictioncruft about some videograme as if it were just as important. I'm glad you are willing to help out here, as the couple of other editors involved had progressed to leaving harassing messages on my talk page and not listening to a single argument I made while falsely claiming that I never responded at all to try to justify themselves. DreamGuy 21:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you think I have been of some help. We will see what other editors think ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am happy with it, but DreamGuy did not compromise. He refused to acknowledge the plural word "mythology", showing that he clearly still does not accept that we are right. He also only included a perversion of the definition I advocated as a secondary item. The new one is better, as, even though it still gives priority to DreamGuy's definition, it accurately includes the one his opponents advocate as well. The word's literal meaning is "the telling of stories", though, and the current is a little awkward with its excessively long opening sentence that was penned by more than one person. I'd like to edit it, but I have the strangest feeling DreamGuy is going to again blindly revert my edit and say I'm doing an edit war. elvenscout742 11:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I did compromise, as your definiton (the popular definition by the poplic who doesn;t know what it's talking about, much like the popular definition of schizophrenia has nothing to do with the real definition) was included even though it really shouldn;t be for an encyclopedia article. That's a major compromise. The literal meaning you claim is false, and "mythologies" is still more awkward and less correct than the simple straightforward and totally accurate "myths", and you keep labeling my edits "blind reverts" when we should really be labeling your edits "blind changes". You need to stop making changes on articles about topics you do not understand and paying attention to people when they explain things to you instead of stubbornly insisting that your way is correct against all evidence. DreamGuy 13:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, how many times do I have to explain to you that the items mentioned in the list are not individual "myths", rather "mythologies", being collections of such stories from particular regions? Could you at least settle for "mythoi" (the plural of "mythos") or "mythi" (the plural of "mythus")? Both words are defined as being technical terms for "a myth or mythology". That way we both get to continue to see ourselves as being right (even though I don't think we'll ever be able to agree on this issue). elvenscout742 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

PlanetMath section 03

I hope you don't mind. I analyzed a couple of PlanetMath references (the ones beginning with \kappa), and determined the appropriate WP article, and provided status. -- Arthur Rubin 21:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, welcome to the PlanetMath project. Feel free to work on whatever sections you like. I am happy to have you're help on the "logic and foundations", section, It is a big section, and there is a lot I don't know about. Regards — Paul August ☎ 00:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Founder Members of the FA Premier League

1. 21:30, 22 August 2005 Paul August (→Founder Members of the FA Premier League -Close VfD, result was DELETE)
2. 21:33, 22 August 2005 Paul August (CORRECTION: Close VfD, result was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP)

Got to admit that made me smile. A sysop's nightmare! Best wishes. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That first edit summary was a bad copy and paste, and yes I did have a moment of panic. I'm glad you found it amusing ;-) Paul August ☎ 23:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Transposition

Hi Paul. Your edit to this article removed two paragraphs for some reason. Must be some Wikipedia quirck again, but I thought you would like to know about it. I fixed it. Oleg Alexandrov 02:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm that is really odd, not sure how that could possibly occur, just randomly droping two paragraphs like that? Bizarre! Thanks for catching it. Paul August ☎ 02:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Want to be quoted in the Signpost?

You were part of the discussion for moving VfD to PfD. I would appreciate any comments that you might have about the process...if you're interested, please leave a note in the appropriate section on User:Ral315/Signpost. ral315 01:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Planet Math

Thanks for the welcome, and for fixing up my errors with status. I'm pressing on with combinatorics, and quite enjoying the challenge! Rich Farmbrough 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome Rich, glad to help. You are doing great work on the PM project! Paul August ☎ 00:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration, rktect

For your information, I have now submitted a request for arbitration: User:rktect -- Egil 11:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Inductive set

Just a heads-up -- I moved your article to Inductive set (axiom of infinity), and put a quick-and-dirty stub about the notion of inductive sets from descriptive set theory at Inductive set. See Talk:Inductive set (axiom of infinity) for rationale. --Trovatore 02:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine Travatore. Paul August ☎ 03:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Axiom of determinacy and PlanetMath

Hi Paul,

so the AD page needs some substantial revision; see its talk page and Talk:Winning_strategy#Organizational_questions. But I don't think merging in the PM article is the way to go. Mainly the PM article should be used to make sure we haven't forgotten anything. That's my review; I didn't see how to encapsulate it into one of the choices given. --Trovatore 15:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Travatore. Maybe we need a new status of "WP article will be more complete" ;-) But perhaps the situation you are describing, is that the PM article has content that our article doesn't but you don't want to use any of the actual text from PM? Rather just use it as a reference? If so that is fine with me. As for the "status", I think "needs to be merged" is not really inconsistent with such a situation, and so I would suggest simply making the status that for now, with whatever qualifying comments you think are appropriate, and after our article has been rewritten, changing the status to "WP article more complete". What do you think? It doesn't really matter all that much anyway, as these are all just notes to ourselves. But I must confess I do derive a foolish pleasure from checking one more item off the list ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

About the references

I must admit I did the deletions voluntarily :-( The decision came from some uncertainities I've been having with the references, concerning the primary sources. The possibilities are two: 1) Putting in reference all the authors recorded in the notes 2) Putting in reference only the dominant source or sources, like putting in reference only Cornelius Nepos' Datames for the Datames article, Polybius for Sosibius. What's your opinion? Aldux 21:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aldux. If you mention a work in the notes then that work should be listed in the references. For the sake of verifiability I prefer as many reference works and citations to those works as possible. Can you say what your doubts were? I can't see any reason not to include them. Regards Paul August ☎ 21:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :-) OK, I'll do as you say. I only had some doubts that came from generating a list too long of references and of duplicating the notes' information.

Speaking of something else, sadly I've built a duplicate article :-( I've wrote Satyric Drama, only to find that Satyr play already exists. How can I mend the problem? Bye Aldux 10:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I've fixed things up, I think. I've merged your content from Satyric Drama into Satyr play (with a few minor changes, feel free to edit it however you think appropriate). I've deleted "Satyric Drama", but I've created a redirect (do you know what these are?) from Satyric drama (notice the lower case "d", this is the correct capitalization). Also I've created a new template "SeyffertDCA" to be used like "SmithDGRBM" and added it to Satyr play. If you've used other text from that work, you should go back and add that template to those articles. Paul August ☎ 13:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Great! And thanks for the new template, I've really missed it. I tried to solve the problem of missing templates using pseudo-templates that seemed templates, but were not. Could you please construct a template for Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiques and one for his Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, since I'didn't find them in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles? And sorry if I'm becoming a bit naggy ;-) Aldux 16:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok I've created "SmithDGRA" and "SmithDGRG". Note that while there exist articles for Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology and Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities there is no article yet for Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, but I have nevertheless linked it in the template. So as a penance for your sins, you must write that article ;-) (otherwise you will be forced to look at that ugly red link all the time) And consider yourself lucky I don't make you write an article on Seyffert's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities as well! Paul August ☎ 17:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes milord, I will atone for my sins and cover my head with ashes ;-) And as further penance, I'll write the article on Smith's DGRG. Vale! Aldux 19:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

just a note

First of all I must tell you that I got here by chance, after seeing Aldux's work on Macedonia related articles and I share your interest in classic Greek. Now, why am I creating this sub-section here: Satyric Drama could have been moved to Satyric drama and shouldn't be deleted because part of the content written by Aldux was used in the original article (it has something to do with GFDL). Perhaps you can do something like that, in a similar situation in the future, so that the history of the contributions is not deleted.

And a question: I've written Teos, do we need to create a template for the classical gazetteer? +MATIA ☎ 16:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Matia, you are quire right, I should have done exactly what you said above. I don't know why I didn't. I have rectified that now I think, by deleting "Satryc drama", undeleting "Satyric Drama", then moving it to "Satryc drama" and redirecting it to Satyr play. That way the history of Aldux's contributions will be preserved, as required by the GDFL. Thanks for pointing that out ;-) As for a template for the classical gazetteer, templates like that are for consistency and the convenience of the editors. As far as I know It is not really a question of "need". Feel free to create one if you like, I don't see how it could hurt. If you need any, I will gladly help. Thanks again and regards. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice phone (☎) by the way ;) Keep up the good work! +MATIA ☎ 17:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Your user page...

...starts off with the most hilarious statement about real and imaginary numbers and telephones. I have been laughing about it with my colleagues since I read it, and has become somewhat of an in-joke in the office. Thank you for the great humour! --HappyCamper 01:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. I wish I could say I made it up. It's and old joke ;-) Paul August ☎ 01:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Attalus and the Galatians

The problem is the term "Gaul" is rather vague. Today it's usually understood to mean speakers of Gaulish, i.e. the Celts of what is now France, Switzerland, and northern Italy, but the Greeks and Romans called the Galatians Gauls too. It's clear the Galatians were Celts and that they moved from Thrace to Asia Minor during the historical period, but no one really knows how closely related they were to the Gauls of Gaul. Their language is way too sparsely attested to say whether it was particularly closely related to Gaulish. I think it's important to mention that the Galatians were called Gauls in the Attalus I article because of the reference to the Dying Gaul (always known as such even though he's apparently actually a Galatian) and because section 2 of the article is called "Defeat of the Gauls" and makes reference to "Galatian Gauls" and even simply "Gauls" in the quote. I wouldn't say calling the Galatians "Gauls" is definitely a misnomer, but it might be; we just don't know enough about the ethnolinguistic groupings among the Continental Celts to be sure. The Greeks and Romans considered them Gauls, and maybe they were right, but maybe they weren't. If you think my edit disrupts the flow, maybe you can change that sentence back to what you had, but then add a sentence in section 2 explaining that the people in question were the Galatians but that contemporary sources called them Gauls. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. It might be worth pointing out that the Greek word here translated "Gauls" is Γαλάται. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Liddell and Scott say that Γαλάται is just a later word for Κέλτοι, implying the Greeks would have called the inhabitants of Gaul Γαλάται as well. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

William Rehnquist

Paul, you don't need to revert the anons. I was watching KCAL 9 News in Los Angeles, and they state a Supreme Court spokesperson announced Rehnquist's death. OCNative 03:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

ok thanks. I looked around but could not find any confirmation. Paul August ☎ 03:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Boolean algebra, dab proposal

I invite your attention to my proposal at Talk:Boolean_algebra#Proposal. --Trovatore 18:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sportsology article

Greetings,

According to [3], the Sportsology article should have been deleted. It hasn't. What was deleted instead was the VfD page itself. Would you correct this please (undelete vfd, delete article)? --Durin 17:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi, thanks for voting for me in my RFA. I was really touched at how many people voted for me! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. I mostly voted based upon our recent pleasant interaction at Attalus I, but you seem to be well-deserving of the old bucket and mop. ;-)

Excuse me please

Why do you keep deleting my New York article? You are from Boston you should know this stuff yourself. And I have this Request for Comment too what is the problem??Wiki brah 05:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Paul August ☎ 05:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am very serious thank you please. I am something of an expert in the field I wroted articles on Anal Sex in Brasil, Sao Paolo and Bisexuality in Brasil too. I am Jewish and visit NYC a lot and other places and I love to party in places I go in fact I did a few lines of yay-yo tonight even

Read WP:NOR. Paul August ☎ 05:17, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

A NOR violation is more a matter for VFD rather than CSD is it not? Plus its not like totally my own view I know a lot of people can back me up on this thank you.Wiki brah 05:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete your article because of NOR. Rather, since I didn't take it as a serious attempt at encyclopedic writing, I deleted it because I thought it was nonsense vandalism. However if it was serious, then it violates NOR.

210.87.251.41

Can you block user:210.87.251.41 who has been warned not to vandalism, yet continues to do it. Xtra 03:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Xtra, thanks for helping to fight against vandalism. I haven't yet blocked the user — I try to be conservative with blocks. I've warned him again, and he hasn't made any edits since. If you think it is warranted (my opinion would be that it probably isn't), you can list this user here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or here: Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Regards. Paul August ☎ 15:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The community owes you one

Paul, you did a fantastic job. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Bish, that means a lot to me that you think so. I hope others agree. I don't know exactly what I think should come of all this, but I thought it was important to try and construct as complete a record as possible of these events. I took no joy from sifting through all these things, but I have to say that Fil's parting message was the inspiration and impetuous for my doing this. Paul August ☎ 16:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that was a lot of good work, Paul. I did get a smile out of the secret weapon, good stuff. :) Drop me a line ☎ anytime. :) Func( t, c, @, ) 16:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I agree with the "a lot" part, but I don't know about the "good" part. Especially when it comes to doing any good. But thanks for your thinking so. I have to admit, as I said to Bish on her talk page, I've been feeling a bit like a lone voice in the wilderness. I'd be interested in other's views on these matters, so I could tell whether I'm just being a ninny or not. Anyway I so wanted someone to see and appreciate my little attempt at levity. (P.S. for you non English native speakers who read this page, and may not know, a ninny is an ass, block, clod, dimwit, dolt, donkey, dope, dullard, dumb cluck, dumbbell, dummy, dunce, gowk, idiot, imbecile, jackass, jerk, jobbernowl, lackwit, lamebrain, lightweight, looby, loon, nincompoop, ninnyhammer, nitwit, noddy, put, stupid, thickwit, tomfool and/or witling.) Paul August ☎ 16:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

While refraining (with considerable effort) to comment on Paul's ninniness, I do want to share my view since Paul asks about it. I agree with Func that Paul did good work here. It is a pity that the case was closed in the meantime. I'm sorry to say that the way the ArbCom handled the matter left me with a bitter aftertaste: negotiating with Ed about a suitable "punishment" and closing the case without comment on Ed's actions smack too much of shady back room dealing to me. Nevertheless, I still have huge respect for the ArbCom members for taking on what is undoubtedly the worst task on Wikipedia, and for me, the Committee clearly has the greatest authority on Wikipedia matters of all persons and entities, even when I don't agree with its judgements. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Your contributions were excellent, and I certainly appreciate them. That said, the Committee is mostly concerned with ensuring that objectionable behaviour does not recur, and it was thought that Ed's resignation as bureaucrat, and his comments recognizing the inappropriateness of his actions, would take care of that. Do you feel this was an inappropriate remedy? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking (and while we are on the subject of thanks, thanks for serving on the ArbCom committee, it is a difficult and thankless job). I have several concerns about the process and the perceptions that that process has generated. I have raised some of theses in various places :-). But I could say more if I felt anyone wanted to hear more. As regards to the remedy. I haven't yet completely formed an opinion on that. When the case closed I was still in the process of adding to the evidence. I had planned to give a summary of the evidence and present some conclusions. As it was I was standing at the gate when the portcullis fell (just missed me, thanks for asking ;-) Any way I hadn't yet decided in my own mind what an appropriate remedy would be. But If I had to express an opinion now, I would have to say that the remedy which has been applied so far, seems less than ideal. Again I could elaborate If you'd like. Paul August ☎ 20:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor arbitration

Ed Poor agreed in private discussion to resign as a bureaucrat. This resolution was based on our perception that he had lost touch with community consensus. He remains a Wikipedia administrator and a valued member of the community. Saving face was one consideration. Fred Bauder 19:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I don't want anyone to lose face, but I still have some concerns about the process. From Raul's remarks it seems as if this had all been discussed and decided some time ago via IRC and mailing list discussions, (which unfortunately I don't have access to) before the case was even officially accepted. Is that true? Paul August ☎ 19:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Before the case was accepted there was some discusion on IRC between Ed Poor, some arbitrators, and some of the people bringing the case. We held off formally accepting the case because we hoped negotiations would settle things, and Ed promised not to act unilaterally again. After he forced a namechange on trollderella we formally accepted the case.

The the arbitrators discussed on the mailing list about the best way to procceed and it was at that point that we decided to ask for his resignation of bureaucrat powers. Which he readily gave. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

They're baaack

Hi Paul,

could use your help over at Boolean algebra. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Boolean_algebra.2C_redux and the latest additions to Talk:Boolean algebra#Proposal

HI Travatore. Yes I had noticed. What we really need to do is write the other article too. I don't quite have the gumption at the moment. But I've responded at Talk:Boolean algebra#Proposal.

Be careful

Paul. Thanks for helping with the vandalism at Fruit. Not sure if you have been following, but please check out the "conversation" at Talk:Fruit#Stupid Fruit Facts with that anon you rolled back. He has been persisting in deleting a statement he just does not like (and will not correct it if it is wrong). When I advise him (on talk pages; he uses at least three different IP addresses) that one cannot just delete facts that are true because of a POV, he attacks me. I did not enter the "offending" fact, and his responses seem irrational. His ISP is from somewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area, so his accusations that I am some kind of typical Eurobashing, "racist" American are a real mystery (since he knows nothing about my sex, race, politics, nationality). I finally blocked him on one ISP after warnings, but his/her responses to discussing why he cannot do what he wants seem way over the wall. I'm unclear where I have insulted anybody (especially the Portuguese]]. He seems to actually just want to pick a fight. - Marshman 00:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I was just on RC patrol, when I saw that, and reverted it. While the anon's behavior has been less than ideal, he may have a point about the carrot jam thing. When I read the lead, as it was when the anon made that edit, I thought it sounded a bit odd. I thought that while remarking on the difference between culinary and botanical usage in the lead was appropriate, detailing those differences didn't belong there. Now I see that they have been moved to their own section. That seems better to me. He also seemed to think that the statement was misleading in that while the Europeans or Portuguese classify carrot jam in the same category as fruit jam, it incorrectly implied that they consider carrot as a fruit. I would also guess that he objected to what could be seen as political overtones (i.e. POV) in asserting that the reason for the European trade rules are because of higher tax rates and because carrot jam is popular in Portugal. Anyway I think thew new section is much better and more NPOV. Paul August ☎ 15:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. As I said many times to the anon, I did not write that item. I was never defending the item. I was concerned that deleting something that is factual because one does not like it was the wrong approach, at which point I was attacked as being anti-EU and anti-Portuguese, then a rabid American saber- ....well you can see how it degenerated. I attempted to steer the anon to our various newbie and civility pages, but he just refused to really read anything I had to say, prefering instead to look for words he could use to have a fight. My attitude is this. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. No volunteer should put up with abusive language from another "contributor". That is a problem that Wikipedians need to nip in the bud whenever it occurs. It will drive good people away if verbal bullying prevails. Thanks for your comments - Marshman 18:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I agree with your sentiments. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Request

I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Succubus

Thanks for removing that dup header, it kept coming and going. I finally walked away from it. I've seen that happen before, no sure why it acts like that. Later! Rx StrangeLove 04:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help out. The double header thing has happened to me before. When you add the closing header template {{subst:vt}} it gets added at the top of the page above the section heading for the article's AfD discussion page. And when you submit the edit, because of caching. and the fact that the discussion page is transcluded, the day page will not reflect the change immediately (you have to purge the server's cache to see your update). But if you re-edit the discussion page by clicking on the "edit" link for that article on the AfD day page, you will be doing a section edit for that discussion page which will only show what is in that section of the discussion page and thus won't show the AfD closing header you added above that section. So if you don't realize this (which I didn't) and you add another {{subst:vt}} at the top, it results in double headers. To see the entire discussion page including the newly added AfD closing header, you have to click on the edit link for the page on the AfD day page and 'then click on the "edit this page" tab at the top of the section editing page. I hope this is all makes sense ;-) And I apologize for the long explanation if you already know all this. Paul August ☎ 15:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense, I think I thought about clearing the cache while trying to troubleshoot but I don't have a specific memory of doing it so that was probably the case. Thanks for the note! Rx StrangeLove 03:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Kush" disambiguation

Hi - - Why did you revert a disambiguation by me for the word "Kush"? Whereas you may never have heard of the legendary Hindu hero of that name, many have, and are interested; please do not revert once again without looking into merits and considering other people. - Anon

I'm sorry your edit looked like vandalism to me. But you are going about your disambiguation in the wrong way, a copy and paste is not the correct way to rename a page since it does not preserve the page histories. And it is not clear to me that you need a disambiguation page in the first place since Kush and Kusha aren't spelled the same. Paul August ☎ 03:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mr.August,

Thanx for the response - - the name Kusha is spelt "Kush" by a section of Indians in order to differentiate its pronounciation from "Kushaa". This is difficult to explain unless you are familiar with Indian scripts and transliteration from Indian languages to the Roman script. Thus "Kusha" is phonetically correct but "Kush" is more widespread in some sections. I wish to develop the page, but seem unable to START with all this attention from others!! - Anon

Can you guide me on how to rename pages? I am not actually registered yet -- does the power come only from registration? - Anon

Yes you have to be logged in to rename a page see Help:Renaming (moving) a page. But you can request a rename here: Wikipedia:Requested moves. I would highly recommend registration it has lots of advantages see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. You can register here: [4] However renaming pages can be controversial, so it is always wise to discuss the propose rename on the associated page's talk page. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask. Paul August ☎ 03:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I've added a couple of divine cultural references today.

Yes I saw that just after I had left my message at your talk page. I was just reading through my dog-eared Inferno trying to figure out if we were done with 'VII, and I was reading our article on Plutus, (wondering if we should mention the probable connection with Pluto, in Dante's mind at least? ) when I got the yellow "You have new messages" message ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The silly I can live with; the malicious is harder. I really worry about the general mtone of 'conversation' in this place and the inconsistent application of sanctions. But I'm here on low-level activity for a while to see how it goes. Filiocht | Talk 14:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes malicious is not very delicious. I understand your concern about the "inconsistent application of sanction", as a perusal of my talk page above will tell you. In that regard, I should perhaps tell you that I have been taking your name in vain of late, in various places. See for example User talk:TheoClarke#The devil made me do it. I hope you don't mind too much. I also hope that none of my own contributions to the conversational tone have been negative. It is in my nature to always have worries on that score (I don't want to end up in the Eighth Circle, Sixth Pouch) Anyway I am very glad to have the opportunity to work together again. And you should know that I am always available to lend a hand with anything which will help make Wikipedia a better place, for you and for all of us. Paul August ☎ 15:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I just hope that my anti-manifesto, as it were, didn't lead you into doing anything you now regret. I've found you to be one of the most considered "conversationalists" in this place; no need for you to worry about the cappe con cappucci bassi, I think. The only thing one can do here really is to model the behaviour you expect from others and hope for the best. Filiocht | Talk 07:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No regrets so far. And I hope you are right about the cappe, I've never liked hoods all that much. By the way, perhaps I seem considered because I'm so slow, it helps sometimes not to be able to type (or think) too quickly. And concerning your last point, I agree — of all the advice and moral teachings I've ever heard, the Golden Rule has always seemed the best. Of course sometimes silence is golden too. I have a harder time remembering that ;-) Paul August ☎ 14:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to self: remember to update status of Dante list on talk page if adding new canto! Filiocht | Consensus is not achieved through voting 07:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No need to worry about updating the "status". You add content. I'll be happy to take care of silly little things like that. (By the way my edit summary of "update again" at Talk:List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy was a mild self-reproach for my having failed to update it correctly the time before!) Paul August ☎ 14:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you tried e-mailing Theo? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Not yet. I was just thinking about it, though. I will soon, if he doesn't show. Paul August ☎ 14:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza made less bureaucratic

Hello again, I have (unilatterly) taken away the 'assembly' idea, as per my reasons at that edit summary and per Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter. I have left the admin general, as some leadership is good. Now, all you have to do is be a member to establish consensus, the whole assembly idea is gone. Also, I have added an advisory committee, of four members, with limited power besides watching over the admin general and making sure he doesn't do anything stupid. Please look at the ammended charter, and I would love a comment. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Computer bug

I see you reverted the edits on Computer Bugs. The statement I removed was a version of the "Fallacy of many eyes". It claims that just because more people have access to the code, it doesn't mean that those eyes are qualified. Please do not put that statement back in, as it is pro open source and generally false. DoomBringer 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

DoomBringer is clearly on the wrong side of history, but he has a point; the passage was a bit POV, though of course the right POV. It could be reworded "open-source advocates claim..." or some such. BTW is there any substantiation to the claim that open-source has generally just as many bugs, or is it someone's subjective impression? --Trovatore 18:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the wrong side of history? Sure, right, uh huh, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou-OSS-Zealot. Seriously. OSS has its place, but its not the single greatest thing in software engineering. Anyhow, the claim that OSS has a roughly equivalent number of bugs to "closed source" is currently unsubstantiated in the current version of the article. Given the religious war by zealots, objectivity in this area is well-nigh impossible. I have to ask if that line is even relevant to the discussion of the whole thing. We can safely assume that all software has bugs, open source or not. DoomBringer 19:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

DoomBringer: Sorry about my revert. I was on "RC patrol" (I like to do that while I'm watching TV, at the end of the day, when my brain is too tired to do anything more creative ;-) I reverted what looked like to me vandalism (i.e. unexplained removal of non-obviously bad text by an anon) I did not mean my edit to be taking a position on the accuracy or the POV of the text I restored. If that edit was yours then I apologize. However, as it happens, I don't necessarily agree that the removed text is inaccurate. Nor do I necessarily agree with your characterization of it. My 30 years of programming experience tends to tell me otherwise. Calling something a "Fallacy" doesn't make it so. In my experience open-source programmers are no-less qualified (in fact just the opposite). And while not taking into account how qualified the "eyes" are, may introduce a fallacy — not taken into account the orders of magnitude more, eyes available in the open-source model, surely will ;-) BTW Travatore's suggestion would seem to deal with any POV concerns, don't you agree? Regards — Paul August ☎ 19:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't logged in at the time. I guess I forgot to. I'm a computer professional too, and I think you're romanticizing open source software a bit. Just like commercial software, quality is all over the board. The "many eyes" argument is just a weak argument, as I said, what makes those eyes qualified? In commercial software, you pretty much have market forces demanding that the code you write is good. Also, the many eyes argument fails for certain "open" source projects. IIRC, Linus Torvalds has control over what goes into the Linux kernal, so if he had an agenda against a contributer (or whatever), those contributions could just fail to become part of the project, thus negating that pair of eyes from doing any good. As for rectifying the article, I vote that the whole thing be removed. Frankly, it isn't even relevant to the whole article. All software has bugs. DoomBringer 19:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on the virtues, or lack thereof, of the open-source model. Anyway I have no plans to edit that article, beyond the possible vandalism revert. BTW edit summaries are good ;-) if you had given a reason for your removing that text I would have passed it right by. Oh and one more thing, Travatore expressed the opinion that you are on the "wrong side of history", I don't see how that makes him a "zealot", and even if it does, I don't see how calling him one helps. Paul August ☎ 20:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

He said I was on the wrong side of history, which I perceived as a slight against me. Moreover, he claims that OSS is the "right" way to do things. Sorry, but I have to point out his obvious bias in favor of the OSS model. OSS isn't "right" or "wrong," it just is a methodology that has its own merits and problems. As it is, I'd rather not get into a debate over if it is a good methodology, because everyone in the debate is so empassioned over it that they fail to listen and instead act with hostility. DoomBringer 21:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of computer bugs

Any more thoughts on Template:Ent? --Trovatore 18:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping you had fixed it by now! I guess not ;-) It is a bit hard for me to work on since I can't reproduce the problem.

Unless you're using a Mac, I'd expect you to have access either to Netscape 7 or Mozilla 1.7.x; the problem shows up in both. Are you saying you've tried Euler's identity in one of those browsers and don't see the problem? --Trovatore 21:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'm on a Mac (of course ;-) And it woorks swimingly for me, using Safari, FireFox, IE and OmniWeb. Paul August ☎ 04:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Some pages which use the templates display ok and some don't right? We need to figure out what is different between them. Here is a list of all the articles using the template [5], are there any other pages that don't work, can you see a pattern? If you feel ambitious, we could work on a copy of the page that dosn't work - edit it by trial and error, figuring out the salient difference that way. Maybe someone else has an idea? (Oleg? Jitse? if you guys are reading this look at Template talk:Ent for more details. Paul August ☎ 19:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The bad ones are:

• Euler's identity
• User:Paul_August/Sandbox

and that's it. I clicked through all those bloody ancient Greeks and they were all fine. --Trovatore 04:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

So I guess the bug has to do with the fact the article is about mathematics, and not ancient Greece then. OK I will copy Euler's Identity to a user page and start hacking it up. Paul August ☎ 04:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

One hack that works: If you separate the two end notes into separate h2 sections, the bug goes away. Not practical as a workaround, but possibly gives some insight? --Trovatore 04:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

OK I've created the following test page: User:Paul August/Subpage 17. Tell me if you have a problem with it? Paul August ☎ 04:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks fine. --Trovatore 04:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, It would have preferred it not to have worked. Ok I've restored it to the original. See if it has the problem now. I'm afraid I have to go to bed, but feel free to play around with the test file. Keep trying to remove extraneous things from the file, trying to reduce the problem to its essential features. We'll talk again tomorrow. Paul August ☎ 05:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

what's left still has the bug. --Trovatore 05:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Though, not when I access it from that link. The "older revision/newer revision" seems to protect against the bug. --Trovatore 05:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's something to do with MathML

When I turned off "use MathML if possible" in my preferences, the bug went away. I'd be curious whether you can see it in Firefox, if you turn on MathML --Trovatore 05:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Good work! Yes turning on MathML in my prefs produces the problem - in all my browsers. This will make it much easier for me to work on. Thanks! Paul August ☎ 14:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of working on that template

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Footnote3, where one Francis Schonken is putting up a feisty case for placing it on the block. The argument is that there has not been a formal proposal for Template:rf and Template:Ent (I've pointed out the discussion on that very page, but she (he?) has either not considered it, or has and remains unimpressed; I'm unaware if you've formally created a proposal page for them). I cannot say that I find her unpersuasive—standardization is important business—and should the matter go to TfD, I'm reasonably certain that that crowd will feel the same way too.

May I make a suggestion, Paul? While you're tweaking the templates for MathML compatibility, could you perhaps create an autonumbering version? This seems to be the most salient opposition to the template. Of course, there is great value in having the choice of manually numbering a few refs in text when one wishes to refer to the same work multiple times; for this purpose, a separate template may be created (see for example {{Ref num}} and {{An num}}). The only other objection that I've seen to your templates is that they use small numbers; I consider this a rather strange objection, given that all footnote systems that utilize superscripts have small numbers, and if one has no objection to the small numbers in ref-note or an-anb, I cannot see how one can have a problem with the numbers in rf-ent.

If you do create an autonumbering version for rf-ent (and hopefully an rf num template to go with them), I expect a formal proposal may do rather well, because it will be a marked improvement over the currently popular ref-note in several ways:

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. it looks darn pretty.

Wadya say?—encephalonεγκέφαλον 03:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Encephalon. I haven't been following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Footnote3 and It is too long for me to read through it all right now. Maybe I will read through it later. The only auto-numbering system that I know of uses the mediawiki's auto-numbered external links feature. That has two problems. It means that you can't use external links in the article, since it will screw up the auto-numbering. And it means that noted text is indicated by superscripted bracketed numbers, which I don't like as well as superscripted numerals. Manual numbering is not that hard. And besides the numbers in the text don't really have to be in order. Only the numbers in the "Notes" section do. Paul August ☎ 03:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks for explaining that. I hadn't realized that that was the reason for the brackets in {{ref}} (though in hindsight it of course makes sense: external links placed in the text without a word or phrase will get autonumbered along with the {{ref}} numerals). I was only hoping that, if you managed a version of rf-ent that met the objections to it, it might formally be put forward as an improvement over ref-note, and thereby be spared a TfD. Do watch that page, though, Paul, if you don't currently. Discussions over footnotes take place there quite often, and I imagine you'd like to know of discussions over the fate of your excellent creations. I expect Francis will move to TfD them soon.—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.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 05:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The rumors of my death...

Thank you for your concern. I was sucked away by the demands of paid work and The Ashes, successively. I then realised that I felt brighter without the daily dip into wikiconflict so I stayed away again. I am impressed with your contributions to the Ed Poor debate but I am not surprised that you felt them to be wasted. The realisation that such processes are time-consuming and ineffective is part of my disaffection with the project. I am now determined to focus on the rewarding aspects. —Theo (Talk) 21:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to find that you are still among the living. And Fil is back too! I am still optimistic about our little wikicommunity. But when I retreat to just editing articles It is always a breath of fresh air. I've been enjoying thinking about Dante again. I recommend it. Oh and Fil is offering to make a nice cup of hot tea for anyone who drops by. Keep in touch. Paul August ☎ 01:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and how do I know you aren't Theo's shade, communicating from beyond the grave? Paul August ☎ 15:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The last time I'm spamming you all with Esperanza stuff

Hello Paul August. As you may or may not know, there have been some troubles with Esperanza. So now, as a last ditch to save the community, please vote at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Reform on all neccisary polls. P.S. I'm very sorry for spamming you all with these messages, and this will be the last time. I recommend putting ESP on your watchlist. Cheers and please look at that, let's stop the civil war then. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching the Malcolm X vandal's work on my user page. It's much appreciated.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome Paul August ☎ 01:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha, good thing you know your history [/sarcasm].

Your obviously an idiot. Nice by the way on the "1 BC" article, where you added "One scholar thinks Jesus was born in AD 1"...emm.. Jesus' year of birth is AD 1 in the Gregorian calendar!! Sure, it may be disputed, but scholars think Christ may have been born from 6 - 4 BC, not 1 BC. In either case, today is the year 2,005 AD (Anno Domini - in the year of Lord Jesus Christ), therefore meaning it's 2,005 years IN THE YEARS of Jesus, meaning he was born AD 1.

I don't claim not to be an idiot, but I can assure that I do have some people fooled, so it may not be as obvious as you think ;-) As regards to my recent edit at {{1 BC]], I was on what we call "RC (recent changes) patrol" looking for vandalism, when I saw a questionable deletion by a not-logged in user (apparently you) of the following: "December 25 - Jesus (died about 33) — traditional date, as assigned by Dionysius Exiguus in his anno Domini era according to most scholars. However, one scholar thinks Dionysius placed the birth of Jesus in year 1." Our article on Dionysius Exiguus, says the following:

Ever since the 2nd century, some bishoprics in the Eastern Roman Empire had counted years from the birth of Christ, but there was no agreement on the correct epoch — Clement of Alexandria (c. 190) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320) wrote about these attempts. Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC — most have selected 1 BC. (There was no zero year.)

Do you dispute the above?

Paul August ☎ 13:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

WikiThanks, regarding protected pages

Thanks for the nice reminder about protected pages. --HappyCamper 17:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Your very welcome ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, would you happen to know where I can read up on how to create a 'bot? I'd like to make something that would automatically archive the reference desk. Right now, there are over 700+ questions there, and it is quickly becoming a bit too impractical to archive manually. --HappyCamper 19:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No I don't know anything abot bot writing, although I would like to. Try asking botmesiters AllyUnion (talk · contribs) or Oleg Alexandrov (talk · contribs). Paul August ☎ 19:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Baulko AFD

Hi Paul, I am not overly familiar with the AFD process, however I note "no consensus" was reached for the above article despite their being three "redirect" votes over two for each of "keep" and "delete". Is an certain level of support required for a given choice? Cheers, --Daveb 02:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Daveb. The purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine whether there is a consensus for deletion or not. In this case there were two editors who were in favor of deleting the article and five who were not (any other recommendation than delete is a recommendation to keep, for example a redirect is a particular kind of keep) Thus there was clearly no consensus for deletion. And, although there was a majority to keep, it was not large enough (in my view - there is no set amount) to call it a consensus. Nevertheless, a lack of consensus to delete means the article will be kept by default. However the article can still be redirected. It could well be that all the editors who expressed an opinion on the AfD would support that. Such a decision is a normal editorial decision which can be addressed on the articles talk page, and doesn't involve AFD. Does that make sense? If anything I wrote wasn't clear, or you have aother questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Paul August ☎ 03:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that Paul - much clearer now. Cheers, --Daveb 09:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

AFD Bot & Purge cache link

Hi Ally. Your AFD bot is removing the purge cache template when it closes the current AFD day. Is there any reason why it can't leave it there? Paul August ☎ 00:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

On the request of Radiant!, it was requested for it to be removed. But frankly, I do not see any reason to leave it on either. Is there any specific reason you think it should be left on? --AllyUnion (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well if you don't purge the cache you don't see the previous updates that have been made to the transcluded pages. So, for example this can cause "double" closures, where an editor will "close" the AfD even though it has been already closed. I've had to correct several of these recently. Is there some reason it should not be left on? Paul August ☎ 14:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No, not really... just that when everything is closed, it is no longer necessary... The request has been changed in AFD Bot. --AllyUnion (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I've been adding the links maunally, for a couple of days now, it would be easier if your bot did it, but I can just keep on doing what I've been doing. Paul August ☎ 15:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ally. (When I responded to the above I didn't see the newly added part about the the bot being changed ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza

What the hell is going on over there? I'm half minded to remove myself from the members list if it's just going to turn into a battlefield of egos. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish I knew. Wikipedia is a chaotic place. I am just going to try to be a patient butterfly flapping my wings encouragingly here and there, and wait and see if Esperanza will somehow emerge from its cocoon. Paul August ☎ 14:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Aristotelian logic again

I'm afraid the poor demarcation between Aristotelian logic and term logic has bitten a contributor, who has laboriously provided a lengthy explanation of syllogistic inference in the former that largely duplicates the explanation in the latter. I'm proposing a merge again, on Talk:Aristotelian logic --- Charles Stewart 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Charles. The merge is fine by me, I've said so there. By the way, I know you expressed an opinion about the name Boole's syllogistic for that article, but did you have any thoughts on the best names for the Boolean algebra and Boolean logic articles? Are you happy with those names? There has been some discussion that they should each be renamed "Boolean algebra" followed by some parenthetical disabiguation. But we can't seem to agree on what the best disambiguation would be, if you haven't already, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Boolean algebra, redux, talk:Boolean algebra and talk:Boolean logic. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw the discussion, and I had thought the article had reached the consensus of leaving things as they were, which I am happy with. I'll put a note there saying so, and why. I'll make a start on the merge today, and probably finish it on Thursday. Thanks for the welcome! --- Charles Stewart 14:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Poetry: it's all in a name

P.S. By the way does "Filiocht" mean poetry in Irish? How do you pronounce it? I was at a Boston Wikipedia meetup last night, when I realized I didn't have the first idea how the last syllable might go ;-)

Yes, that's what Filiocht means. You'd say it something like fill-e-oct (as in octet, more or less, three syllables, short 'e' as second one). Why, pray tell, would my name arise in a Boston meetup? Nothing bad, I hope. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh we were all talking about what a scoundrel and a rogue you are ;-) No — It only "came up" in my mind. Some imagined conversation about my recent experiences within WP I think. It was my first time at the meeting and I suppose I was self-consciously wondering what I would talk about. Sorry to have piqued your imagination unnecessarily ;-) Paul August ☎ 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough; hope you enjoyed the meetup. Are we going to reformat the Dante list as per your preference? I'll help out as and when I can. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for being" agreeable" ;-) I appreciate the offer of help, but I would really prefer if you spent time adding content and let me do the drudge work. You being the man of letters, and me the man of numbers, it seems like a more reasonable division of labour. Also I would feel a bit guilty, since I couldn't help feeling I was making you cater to my perfectionistic whims ;-) As for the meetup, it was nice to see some of these people face-to-face. It left me feeling more optimistic about WP. There is some talk about holding the next wikimania in Boston. That might be interesting. Paul August ☎ 13:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been accused of vandalism - someone want to ban me? Oleg? Jitse? Fil? Nate the Stork? Func? Bish? Sj?

Well It's finally happened. I've been accused of vandalism. Maybe I was too empowered by my first Boston wiki-meetup. So perhaps I will blame it all on Sj. Now I know how it feels — not so good. Oh well I guess it had to happen eventually. But it is a new and rather unpleasant wiki-experience. Anyone want to ban me now? (Oleg? have you blocked anyone yet? this might be a good test) I know that first time vandals don't usually warrant banning but I think I'm a special case. Don't you? Paul August ☎ 20:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. This is another first: The first time I've initiated a section on my own talk page. Maybe I need a wikbreak ;-)

Yes, I am looking forward to banning somebody, just for practice. You know, there is a first in everything. And why not you be the first person I will block? But Paul, do you really want me to do that to you? I mean are you really sure? If I block you, and then you realize you don't really want to be blocked, if you are starting having a withdrawal from not being able to edit, how will you Paul notify me that you want to be unblocked, as you will be blocked and won't be able to edit?!? So think about it Paul. Its like jumping from the bridge, you know. You are half-way through and then you want to live, but its too late! Think about it. Oleg Alexandrov 20:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes yes, perhaps you are right. Perhaps I'm not really thinking clearly about this? Perhaps I'm being selfish? Think of all my friends and colleagues and loved ones! How would I ever forgive myself? How could they ever get along without me? How would we ever complete the PM project? Perhaps there is something to live for after all! … Naaaa, go ahead and ban me. — Paul August ☎

OK, OK, I will ban you if you insist. But don't be selfish, and indeed finish with the PM project first. Of the 4000 articles there, at least three thousand need reviewing I guess. Talk to you again in a couple of years. Oleg Alexandrov 00:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will hold you to your promise, but at the rate that Jtwdog is reviewing articles, it will not be in a couple of years, but rather a couple of days ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And now I've deleted AfD! (no an AfD, not the Afd), see below. Oleg: I really think I may need banning soon. Paul August ☎ 17:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, we can make amends

Hi Paul,

Please make that description of rf/ent templates, put it somewhere in "wikipedia:" or "help:" namespace, and inform your fellow-wikipedians where they can find that description of how to use these templates.

Maybe I was "short", I rather think I was too elaborate in my answers: the discussion about this alternate template takes too much space on wikipedia talk:footnote3, and it was inserted in a section where it's basicly not related to.

"Footnote3" guideline is severely attacked by some guy having a very peculiar idea about wikipedia:cite sources. That guy removed the "guideline" template from footnote3 a few days ago, in his attempts to discredit footnotes as a viable way to support verifiability. I called that intrusion on the footnote3 guideline (while the debate about confirming the guideline status of footnote3 is going on, without any conclusion in that sense) "vandalism", while deliberately neglecting the message in the "guideline" template. If you did the same thing, I called it the same. De-guidelining footnote3 is not going to help, IMHO.

I try to avoid as much as I can to think in categories of "OK guys"/"not OK guys" (which I experience somehow as not making the best out of Wikipedia). So I'd rather call an act "vandalism" than a guy "not OK".

And I continue my attempts to harmonise wikipedia footnotes with the cite sources guideline, but please, present the rf/ent templates to the community, so that I don't have to worry about that: if they're accepted, fine, I'll be the first to link the description of how to use them from the footnote guideline.

--Francis Schonken 05:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A small gift

For all your hard work formatting the List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy, I give you this star. Filiocht (KC)

Ah shucks twern't nothin. I needed a bit of a pick-me-up this morning (see the two sections immediately above), and your star did the trick ;-) thanks! Paul August ☎ 15:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)