User talk:Aughost

First contact — Aughost (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your picture at Image (mathematics)
I removed your image as far too cluttered and confusing for the purpose. Illustrations are supposed to show up something, you should have as little as possible other than what is being illustrated not fill up a picture with whole lots of extraneous stuff. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Formatting on talk pages
Hi, I edited Talk:Fraction (mathematics) because I found the layout difficult to read, and because I saw that other people had complained about the formatting. I did not change any of the text, only the layout. Since you object, I won't edit it again. But I suggest that you carefully read the guidelines at Talk page guidelines and Help:Using_talk_pages. Best wishes, Jowa fan (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In a talk page, some links are part of argumentations. Maybe a few of adversaries will be discouraged if some targets of their links are removed.  Do you want to win disloyally?  Some people believe that being deaf  is a way to defend themselves.  I prefer the idea that anyone can learn by listening to other people.


 * You show me other links. You don't say anything neither about fractions, nor about these fine words supposed to define a fraction in mathematics:  “a fraction represents a part of a whole”.  Rendezvous in the talk page… — Aughost (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it seems that I made a mistake here. My intention was to remove the frames and instead indent the  paragraphs in the usual way, as per the guidelines I mentioned above.  I didn't notice that some of the HTML tags were targets of links.  I wasn't trying to "win" anything, only to organise the talk page so that it's easy for people to read.  Please accept my apology for the mistake. Jowa fan (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TALK (also, look at the HTML tags there to see an appropriate way to tag subsections) and WP:Indentation. I'll try to fix Iowa fan's edits to restore the tags.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)In the talk page of "Fraction_(mathematics)", I was obliged to cancel two successive attacks to some anchors in my code.  Arthur Rubin was aware of the presence of these anchors, since the fact was indicated after the first attack.  Yet Arthur Rubin came back to Jowa fan's version, where the anchors were removed.  Why?  Arthur Rubin has pretended that I had broken the indentation,  we don't agree on that.  Anyway, indentation and anchors are independent things.I was obliged to cancel the third attack,  when Arthur Rubin had written:  “Undid revision 457514903 by Aughost (talk) but restore pointers (tags to paragraphs are inappropriate)”. In my opinion, my HTML elements are appropriate. And I will correct any fault, if Arthur Rubin convinces me that I made a mistake.For example, our messages must be in conformity with the following recommendations.  “Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard indentation and formatting conventions. Avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions”. Yet some people were obliged to repeat themselves, because of the absence of real argumentation of other people. That is become deafening about topics like use of some outdated terms, “vulgar fraction”  for example, or a bad definition of "fraction" in mathematics. Moreover, it happened that the meaning of the talk page was obscured by some bad tricks, like inserting a message at an inappropriate place. The presentation of my messages is part of my answers to these realities.In the current talk page of "Fraction_(mathematics)", I have counted twenty-nine occurrences of “part of a whole” from the section "#Definition"  up to the bottom of the page. In "#Definition", the first sentence of "seberle" is:  “the opening definition "A fraction is a number that can represent part of a whole" is not very satisfactory”. According to the current first sentence  of the article, a fraction once more “represents a part of a whole”. I have explained why that definition, which is not mathematical, gives a bad idea of a fraction in mathematics. But the expression was sempiternally repeated as an evidence:  a part of a whole. The absence of real discussion about that became more and more flagrant, except a little bit, finally, in some Iantresman's messages and two Jowa fan's messages.Arthur Rubin can see for himself the standard indentation of the colored message, where I use the terms “fixed idea”  to denote the sempiternal expression. Why this code:  &lt;dl&gt;&lt;dd id="fxd"? The anchor #fxd has just been used in the previous link. With that anchor, we can show again my colored message, that appears like an alert because of the following CSS code:  style="padding:2em;background:#eca". In his answer, Rick Norwood had complained about the presentation of my colored message, he said:  “it is a form of shouting”. But Iantresman was more understanding, he wrote:  “Aughost, of course the simpler sentence is more ambiguous, because it is more general. It is not a mathematical definition, and is not intended to be.”  And Iantresman would see later in the article a mathematical definition of fraction. Yet an initial distortion of the plain meaning of "fraction" would be a mistake. And Ianstresman makes a mistake when he says “more general” for the sempiternel phrase, since the first term of a ratio is not always less than the second one.To justify his desire to change the talk page of "Fraction_(mathematics)", Arthur Rubin invoked general rules. But he had not participated in the discussion, and he made obvious mistakes. For example, the successive messages are not always in chronological order, while the successive indentations are systematical, in the version that he proposed.Sometimes, my answer is framed in close proximity to some JimWae's messages, because I remember a problem.  A frame is also a way to group several paragraphs. A div HTML element with some CSS code is a way to frame.In the current talk page of "Fraction_(mathematics)", for example, the last sentence of the last Sławomir Biały's message is:  “I know  the article isn't very good, and maybe it should mention these things later on, but the lead seems like the last place to discuss topics of peripheral relevance”. In the current introduction of the article, the faults are symptoms of negligence, that was denounced for several years by numerous people, in the talk page.</dd><dd id="ndgtg" style="padding:0.5em 1em">In the talk page of "Fraction_(mathematics)", Arthur Rubin has canceled my last modification, and changed the code in several lines at the same time. My simple cancellation will be more comprehensible, before the discussion that will follow. I demand greatest respect for my contributions.</dd>— Aughost (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)</dl>


 * It's still a clear violation of WP:TALK, and distracting, and is not comprehensible to anyone other than you. I don't mind slight changes of background color to indicate your comments, and adding internal links (but, to be fair, if anyone else were to use your method, it would break; the div name need to have your user name as a component or substring).  To be fair, although I didn't agree with you before you added the highlighted arguments, I haven't read them since you added the bars.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough HTML to fix the clear problems while retaining your links, and I never understood < dd> tags that well. If the HTML, without significant modification of the user's CSS, allows links between sections, it may be a good idea, except for the bars.  If it only works for you, it's still acceptable, if it doesn't affect any visual elements, and is likely to be retained on archiving.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing all the decoration, and restoring standard indentation, would be a good start. (As it stands, even in your version, your signature is not aligned with the your text.)  By the way, you've still restored a few inappropriate non-breaking spaces, which I haven't deleted.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * After writing these words: “removing all the decoration, and restoring standard indentation…”, Arthur Rubin came back once again to a wrong version of Talk:Fraction_(mathematics),  that notably did not respect chronological order.  Most of people don't take care of reading the dates of messages in a talk page.  Maybe Arthur Rubin was tempted to cheat…


 * According to the current Talk:Fraction_(mathematics),  there is no message in the talk page from February 2009 to January 2011.  Below the title "Vulgar_fractions", the last message in 2009 was apparently signed by Rick Norwood.  Apparently Clifsportland alias Cliff replied in 2011:  “I am disturbed by the fact that…”.  Actually, Cliff has transfered to "Talk:Fraction_(mathematics)/Archive_1" some messages, because of a bad use of &#x7b;{Archive box collapsible}}.  Maybe Rick Norwood wants to restore the reality of the talk page. — Aughost (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad archiving
Have you tried just asking Cliff to fix it? I think that should be your first step. Your second step could be just to revert to the last stable version. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange message

 * Why are you referring your reverts of my edits to this page when I have not, until now, ever posted here? --JimWae (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

<p id="htstm" style="background:#def;padding:0.5em 1em">I justified with these words when I canceled  your strange presentation of the talk page:  “ ”. In the justification there is a link, among other links for everybody in the history of Talk:Fraction_(mathematics), in case someone would wonder which events could explain your “what a waste of time”,  and perhaps explain other bizarreries on Fraction_(mathematics) and its talk page. — Aughost (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * bizarreries is not a word. Cliff (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

October 2012
Hello, I'm Mediran. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Pythagorean theorem, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Mediran  talk 11:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I messed a little...
Sorry for the notification for vandalism on the article Pythagorean theorem. I undid my edit and sorry again for that. Thank you and Happy Editing! Regards, Mediran  talk 11:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You wrote that it was a mistake,  thank you for that. — Aughost (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Pythagorean theorem
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pythagorean tiling
Please clarify your relationship to the anonymous contributors and  in the discussion at Talk:Pythagorean tiling. The three of you seem to have a common interest in, and similar views on, the articles Pythagorean tiling and Concentric. There is nothing wrong with editing while logged out, but if you are in fact connected with these comments, as another user has suggested, then your language "I agree ..." could be considered misleading. You might like to review Sock puppetry, especially Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists. Deltahedron (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * People and machines must be distinguished. Someone can use several machines, and only one machine can be used by several people. — Aughost (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * True but does not address the point. By using the wording "I agree", you imply that you are a different person to the person or persons editing from those IP addresses.  If you are in fact the same person, that means you have given the impression of more support for your position that exists.  The similarity between the language used, the position taken, and the interests of those IP editors and your own edits makes it reasonable to suppose that you are in fact the same person.  In the absence of a direct answer to the question, which you have now been asked politely several times, it will be necessary to investigate whether you are deliberately attempting to manipulate consensus at this page in favour of your position and further attempting to conceal that.  It is therefore very much in your own interest to clarify your relationship with those IP edits.  Deltahedron (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have relationships with people, not with some IP. — Aughost (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Aughost. Thank you. Deltahedron (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please consider your behaviour at this talk page carefully. Apart from the issue mentioned above, where there is reason to believe that you are using multiple identities to give your position weight, your contributions appear to consist of proposing images for inclusion without giving any reasons and then demanding that other editors give repeated and detailed reasons not to follow your suggestion. This is not a helpful contribution to the debate and indeed fails to follow the advice you have freely given to others to "avoid doubtful generalities". Your conduct is becoming disruptive — if you are unable to engage constructively with your fellow editors, this direction of travel may end up with you prevented from engaging at all. Deltahedron (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * About this image, why not give your opinion on the discussion page of the article? — Aughost (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Really...read WP:GAB ASAP please (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Later, I could be blocked again for the same reason, accused of using multiple accounts without understanding why… — Aughost (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent image additions
I have started a discussion about your recent image additions here:


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Stellation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 18:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have expanded the discussion to cover more articles where you appear to be warring with other editors. I would strongly advise you to stop and to discuss your proposed 3edits on the article talk pages, otherwise you are likely to get reported to the Admins and receive a longer ban than last time. Sorry to sound downbeat, but I found out the hard way that warring is never wise; maybe you can learn my lesson before it is too late, grin. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dissection puzzle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Image at "Tessellation"
I have raised a discussion on Tessellation's talk page with my concerns about the necessity or usefulness of the image you have placed there. I came here just to notify you of this, but I see that you have a history of adding unwanted images without proper discussion. Could you please state your reasons on the talk page. Meanwhile, please take note that while you have not broken the three-revert rule here, you have returned to exactly the behaviour that you were warned about back in January, which is not acceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See my answer, please. Aughost (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Another user has found a home for the image, and a more apposite caption. However my warning above was correct, and it stands. Please discuss rather than edit-war, and please think what readers need in the way of images, rather than - I suppose - starting with some imagery and looking for a home for it. I'm glad we have a solution to the problem, but hope such problems will not continue to arise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Gallery at "Tessellation"
I am sorry to have to raise a second discussion on Tessellation's talk page, again after you have needlessly made a change - twice, in edit-warring style - this time to the longstanding placement of the Examples gallery at the end of the article. Your argument that it needed to be promoted to level 2 is fine, but your conduct in moving it without discussion, and reverting again, is not. Please could you put the gallery back at the end, so that we do not have to take this any further. Thanking you in advance, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm afraid I chipped in again. Hoping you can respond on the discussion page. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion is in the title, before a so-called discussion… — Aughost (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Other accounts
Just in case you are the same person as Arthur Baelde and 109.6.129.249, you should mention that on your user page. The same for other accounts that you may have used. Watchduck (quack) 20:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)