Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:24, 9 February 2010

I'm sorry, you have reached an imaginary number. If you require a real number please rotate your telephone by ± 90° and try again.

Archives
Complete archive Individual archives: Template:Multicol Jul–Dec 2004 Jan–Jun 2005 Jul–Sep 2005 Oct–Dec 2005 Jan–Mar 2006 Apr–Jun 2006 Template:Multicol-break Jul–Sep 2006 Oct–Dec 2006 Jan–Mar 2007 Apr–Jun 2007 July–Sep 2007 Oct–Dec 2007 Template:Multicol-break Jan–Mar 2008 Apr–Jun 2008 Jul–Sep 2008 Oct–Dec 2008 Jan–Jun 2009 Template:Multicol-end

Happy first edit day!

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing Paul August a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Megara

Citation edit

Question: I saw the notice at the top of the C.S. Lewis article ("This article's citation style may be unclear. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation"). I updated the reference to a standard Book Citation. You undid the reference stating it was redundant (I assume with the Bibliography). Curious as to why. Is a link considered sufficient in Misplaced Pages? What does their comment re: citation style unclear mean then? Appreciate any advice you can give me.

I saw other references in history to citation style and cite.php

User:bmuth 20:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edit simply repeated information that was already included in the "References" section (not the "Bibliography" section). That's why I said it was redundant. I don't know what you mean by "Is a link considered sufficient in Misplaced Pages?" See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources for more information, particularly the section "Shortened footnotes", which is the citation style used (primarily) by that article. However as the notice in the article says the article is inconsistent in it's citation style, for example it also uses "Parenthetical referencing". It would be better if the article used one style only (in this case I think "Shortened footnotes" style would be best). Paul August ☎ 00:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My Apologies

I'm so sorry for what I did on the hyperreal numbers page. I was caught in a momentary lapse of self-control, and behaved childishly and irrationally. Who knew one simple little word would be so damaging. Thankfully, a hero arrived in the form of Paul August, and I thank you for saving me of my folly. I am truly blessed to have been saved by one such as yourself. Alas, I regret to say this is not the first time such a spell has come over me. The last time I was saved by Dr. Arthur Rubin. His Erdős number is only 1, and he's a 4-time Putnam scholar, so being saved by him was an even bigger blessing, but you take what you can get. Hopefully I never fail to control myself anymore, and if I can once again go without changing articles needlessly, I'd have you to thank. And Dr. Rubin, but that's irrelevant. Once again, I thank you sir, and I apologize.

Love, Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.149.78 (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Where to find text of deleted articles?

Is there a place where deleted article text goes so that I can archive it for my own personal use? Obviously searching the history of the old article does nothing. Please help. I will check back here for a post from you. I hope you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkech (talk • contribs) 05:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Any administrator can access a copy of deleted text, and might if asked provide you with a copy of the text. Asking the admin who deleted the page might work, since they would be familiar with why the page was deleted. Paul August ☎ 13:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your information helped me find someone who gave me an archive. Thanks for your help! Tkech (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Paul August ☎ 17:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy to see the article saved

I am very happy that Attalus kept his star. I am sorry I did not help more to address the remaining reviewers's concerns, but a heavy program, vacations and a broken bone have been keeping me away! I hope that I'll have the chance to cooperate again with you some time in Misplaced Pages (in FAC, FAR or somewhere else!), because you are one of the gentlest guys around, and it is always a pleasure for any user to work with you. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. And thanks again (I hope you saw my last comment on that review) for your very valuable work on the article, in particular locating all those secondary sources. I am not so concerned with the star, but I am glad that we were able to improve the article somewhat. Regards, Paul August ☎ 12:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Common logs in plotting

Thanks for patching up the linkage in logarithm, but I think we shouldn't really be including this statement and linking to the unsourced bit in common logarithm, at least until we can get some support for it. So I took out the sentence, including your link. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Paul August ☎ 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Synergetics coordinates

I just want to point out that after your edit of Synergetics coordinates it actually does not have an algabraic (written) example of the coordinates such as '(x,y,....)'--Dchmelik (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about exactly. But I think you might be confusing my edits with the edits made by Cjnelson9. My only edit to the article was to remove the proposed deletion template added by the IP 74.98.46.147 because I felt that in order for this article to be deleted it ought to go through a full deletion discussion first. Paul August ☎ 20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Visual difference

Did this edit make any visual difference in the article? I thought that whitespace on the ends of headings is ignored. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, no difference. I think I ran across this edit, first and reverted without noticing the net effect of that IP's string of edits, and hence my revert. Paul August ☎ 00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Paul,

I think your summary on Talk:Pi is reasonably fair. (I'm responding here to avoid cluttering that talk page with further discussion of this.) As far as I can tell, there's not anyone in particular who deserves blame, but somehow the collective actions of several editors amounted to bullying behavior. (For better or ill, the wikiproject does have a tendency to gang up on people sometimes.) For what it's worth, I thought your apology on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics showed a lot of class and did a very good job at diffusing the situation.

Cheers, Jim (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jim for your comments. Yes I can see why some editors might have felt bullied and I deeply regret that, and my role in that. As you imply I don't think that was the intention of any of the editors involved, but may have been the net effect. (The way in which individual actions each of which is without apparent blame can nevertheless lead to collective blame is a profoundly interesting and important problem.) As you might be able to tell from my comments elsewhere, I have considerable regard for WikiProject Mathematics and its members, so I'm troubled to see you write that the project has a "tendency to gang up on people". I have to say I can't recall any situations I'd describe that way, but my responsibilities with respect to the Arbitration Committee have meant I haven't followed the project as closely as I once did, so perhaps things have changed there. That would be most unfortunate. Jim, I'd really appreciate any pointers you can provide to any past incidents, and I'd especially appreciate being notified of any future ones.

I notice your qualification "for better or ill", recognizing (I suppose) that sometimes the collective will needs to exert itself, even though someone may inevitably feel wronged. This is particularly problematic on Misplaced Pages. Although occurring within a vast sea of cultural norms, the great majority of editorial decisions are (or at least feel like) individual ones. This is tremendously empowering. But, the more often you get your way, the harder it is to accept when you don't.

Paul August ☎ 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have enormous respect for WikiProject Mathematics and its members, and I certainly wouldn't say that there's a pattern of bad behavior. It just seems that, by its nature, the wikiproject has a tendency to impose its collective will on mathematics articles, sometimes over the objections of individual editors. I don't have any specific past instances in mind, but many of the posts on the wikiproject talk page seem to be implicit (or sometimes explicit) requests for allies, and we don't tend to be shy about acting collectively when the need arises.

By the way, if Finell doesn't respond to your post on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics, you may want to try moving the discussion to Talk:Pi. I hardly see how the venue for the discussion matters, but this seems to be something of a sticking point for him, and giving in on this issue might make the rest of the discussion go more smoothly. Jim (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the collective will has been properly formed, that it prevails is no bad thing. But, If an editor asks for, or gives, support on any sort of quid pro quo basis, then that violates the ideals upon which Misplaced Pages is based. Even asking for, or giving, support based upon considerations of obvious expertise and genuinely earned respect may be problematic. Such things undoubtedly occur. It is difficult to imagine how we might eliminate them, and in the latter case weather we should. Perhaps though a project wide discussion would help?

As for the infobox discussion, I'd be happy to move it to Talk:Pi.

Paul August ☎ 13:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Dido

Hi. I saw that u added links in the Dido disambiguation page. The guidelines show that we only link one item per line. Details are over at MOS:DAB. That whole area of Misplaced Pages is an interesting place to work. Just thought i'd let u know. Dawnseeker2000 04:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. News to me. Paul August ☎ 11:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Set

Please do not remove the link to concept in the article set. There are very few instances where linking "concept" is completely appropriate, and this is obviously one of them. Please also see User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue over it. Paul August ☎ 03:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your diplomacy. One of my general tasks on WP is to try to incorporate the fundamentals into logic articles. Unfortunately I find that many mathematicians see this as terrible and irrelevant and delete my work. Please be open-minded that quite a few of these articles in the logic department are not ruined by explicating their relation to their metalogical, philosophical, fundamentals, foundations, etcetera. I would be fine with removing this type of thing from other articles which are father removed. "Set" however is very very fundamental. If someone wants to remove that kind of thing from an article like Grzegorczyk_hierarchy which is several times removed from any philosophical issues and where there really is no reason, that's makes complete sense. But for things like set and theorem I think people need to be more open-minded. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:@

Thanks, I replied there as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

— sligocki (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI - question. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replied there. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Edit to clarification

Hi Paul. This edit removed several statements, including my own. I assume it was unintentional, but I wasn't sure the best way to go about fixing it, so thought I'd ask you. Happy New Year, anyhow. :) MastCell  04:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that I'll look into it (perhaps it was an ec). Paul August ☎ 04:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, never mind - I think I fixed it, though probably best if you double-check it as well to make sure I didn't mess it up. MastCell  04:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added back another statement that went missing. I think everything is fixed now, but would welcome a double check. Thanks for looking after me. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thanks! Best wishes to you as well. Paul August ☎ 04:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What is part of mathematics

Paul, you may be interested in the following discussion, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Computational complexity theory as part of "mathematics". Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Oleg. I took a look, but I'm afraid I can't think of anything useful to say at the moment. Paul August ☎ 20:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think there are plenty of opinions already. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: I fixed....

Thanks, forgot about that. Hersfold 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Roman inquires

Your input would be appreciated at

• Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities#How many official Dictators to time of Roman Empire
• Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities#"lex Junia Licinia"

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell 20:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think I have anything useful to say there. Paul August ☎ 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 11 January 2010

• From the editor: Call for writers

• 2009 in review: 2009 in Review

• Books: New Book namespace created

• News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

• In the news: Misplaced Pages in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Misplaced Pages's birthday and more

• In the news: Misplaced Pages on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Revert of edits at Mithraic Mysteries

Hi,

Thanks for your note. I've written an explanation of what I reverted and why on the talk page for the article. By all means, let's reach consensus! Roger Pearse (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've just seen it, and will respond there. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked through your copyedits and accepted most of them -- thanks for picking this stuff up. The stuff that I was really getting rid of was the "Mithras BC stuff" which was added by someone else, but somewhat hard to prune out by itself! Roger Pearse (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There were several other changes I made that you have not restored (probably you missed many as they are hard to see in a diff). Can you tell me which if any of my edits you object to? Thanks. It would be best if we continue this discussion on the article talk page. Paul August ☎ 20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! I preferred to leave the AD stuff as profuse as it was. But the other edits all seemed fine. In fact I reinserted them all, or thought I had. What did I miss? Roger Pearse (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't fret. See my comment here. Paul August ☎ 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry - should action be taken?

You recently blocked Qwertyisbest for page-move vandalism. I just noticed a user named Qwertyismykeyboard editing an article Qwertyisbest was interested in, and the assumption of sockpuppetry doesn't seem too far-fetched. Qwertyismykeyboard's edit wasn't vandalism, though. What should be done? Block evasion is prohibited, of course, but calling for checkuser seems like overkill right now. Should I just wait and watch? Yours, Huon (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I would just keep an eye on that account, for now. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Huon (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of Reality

Hi there. Back in 2005 you discussed this article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. The article has since been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Epistles of Clement

I do not want to get into a fight over the AD. CE issue: I left a note on Calcearius‎ talk page, will you look at it and see if any thing else needs to added so that this issue does not become contentious. Thanks. Hardyplants (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your edit at Epistles of Clement was fine (even though it did revert my "circa" to "c." changes -- which I've now redone -- otherwise my change of one "AD" to "CE" was simply for the purpose of internal consistency). So the article now looks ok to me with respect to date era. I also agree and support RJC's and your comments at User talk:Calcearius, and can't think of anything that needs saying there. But if you need support for your reversion back to BC/AD eras on that article, I will support your edit based upon the argument that the article used that date era originally (although I personally don't put any stock in the "topic" argument). Regards, Paul August ☎ 21:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help!

I see you have a Ph.D.

This is a heated discussion in the Talk:Barack Obama page.

There are some people who insists that President Obama is a professor. There are some that want to diminish his achievements. I take the neutral ground.

I think there is confusion between Professor and professor. The difference escapes many people in the general public. Obama was a part time faculty member and was given the title of Lecturer then Senior Lecturer. Senior Lecturer is very honorable but it's not the same as Professor and Chair.

What do you think? Does the average person know the difference between Professor, the title and professor, the generic profession? I think not. To prevent confusion and misunderstanding and not to diminish the man nor inflate his resume, I think that a simple mention that he was on the part time faculty at the University of Chicago Law School where he was a Lecturer and later Senior Lecturer is very honest, accurate, and neutral.

Please help! JB50000 (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Hi Steven. Thanks for your two years + of service to the AC. It was a pleasure serving (briefly) with you. Paul August ☎ 03:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Paul, I enjoyed working with you also. I'm sure I can speak for the 2009 Committee in saying that we also appreciated your assistance in other capacities since leaving the Committee. --bainer (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your note to me on Latin West

Thanks so much for the note and your work. on those articles. Both are neccesary and Your re-instatements are much appreciated. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Paul August ☎ 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Loved the comment! The possibility didn't even begin to think about crossing my mind... Haploidavey (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

;-) Paul August ☎ 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

General idea of the revolution

Any possibility of reinstating this? It is a perfectly good article although it needs Wikifying and a bit more research on how to link it to other articles. Thanks for your help with the other articles 86.184.133.167 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you email me and we can discuss it. Paul August ☎ 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not interested in an unblock. No point with a floating IP. But am interested in reinstating that article. Can you not do that? 86.184.133.167 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Euclid

You missed the last edit war over whether Euclid had "oriental origins".—Finell 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting fixes

Usually if you have to manually edit a page to fix the formatting so that your script will accept it, you're doing something very wrong. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess in this case that would be trying to parse free verse. Paul August ☎ 04:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

is OK in a different place?

and what about in a different place? (recursion)  franklin  03:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The editorial consensus is, I believe that such "recursive links" are not appropriate, so please don't. Paul August ☎ 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Illuminationism

I wonder if you could be so kind as to do the honours again. This refers . Could I possibly see the version of Illuminationism that was deleted by Fram? And why did 'Beeblebrox' revert to an inconsistent set of birth dates for Duns Scotus in the same article? Shouldn't rule C5 be treated with discretion and care? Are any of the people here actually qualified to look after an encyclopedia? Regards John Watkins LLD (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nero Article Error

Hi Paul. I notice you're active in maintaining the article on the Roman emperor Nero. I think there may be vandalism in footnote 5 ("Nero was not a fiddle player..."), but I've looked at some past revisions and it's been in place for awhile, so I'm not sure. Would you mind checking it out and addressing it if appropriate? Thanks, Candent shlimazel (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes clearly vandalism. I've now fixed this. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Query re counting

This appears to have 6, but from a reading of the top of the page, with 0-1 abstentions, 7 are needed to pass? Cirt (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There's also one recusal which, as regards to the majority, acts the same as an abstain. Paul August ☎ 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)