User talk:Paul August/Archive10

Thanks for the welcome message
Hello Paul, thanks for your message, I've added my name to the list of participants in Wikiproject Mathematics, what do I get in exchange for my soul? Best, Arcfrk 08:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For selling your soul to the mathematics project? What would you like? How about not having to pay to edit? I can arrange it I'm part of the cabal. Paul August &#9742; 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely they have an exemption for recent Fields medal winners? Thanks for the offer, though. Arcfrk 18:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry they have to pay double. Paul August &#9742; 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfAr
It's okay :) Although I'll need to move that message a section above (I've sectionalized my talk page :P)- Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 19:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: InShaneee, do you want me to go ahead and close it now, even though CM hasn't reviewed? - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can wait for a response to your message on CM's talk page, or go ahead and close it now, either is fine with me. Paul August &#9742; 17:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal Vendetta
Hey Paul, I'd like to draw your attention to a certain RfC that user:AdilBaguirov has been reporting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Khoikhoi It seems that Mr. Baguirov, knowing that his fate of a ban has been decided by the ArbCom, is on a personal vendetta against admin/user:Khoikhoi who is a respected, neutral administrator. He is using whatever's left of his wiki-days to settle a few vendettas and to get as many people as possible to be involved in the Arbitration. He has vigorously tried his best to report users such as me, Eupator and more recently user:MarshallBagramyan who is not even in the Arbitration in the his personal hopes and goals. - Fedayee 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Atabek
I think that the ArbCom should revisit its decision on Atabek. He doesn't add anything positive to the Armenian-Azeri dispute resolution. Worst of all is his denial of the Armenian Genocide. -- Aivazovsky 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello Paul, thanks for your dedication to the Armenia-Azerbaijan case and your decision to propose/grant some of the users, including me, less-strict remedies. I am glad that your propositions passed...it won't go in vain! Thanks again - Fedayee 02:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Demosthenes
Hi!

Since you are a classicist, a person who has edited in the past the article, and a member of WP:GREECE I wanted your input to this: User:Haiduc proposed some changes for Demosthenes. I was reluctant to accept them, but then I let him add a new section, which I just modified a bit. You can see the discussion here, and the recent additions in the article's recent history (Haiduc's addition and my modifications). As the main contributor of this article I cannot be as objective as I would like. Since I am not yet sure about the utility of such additions, and since we speak about a FA and the issue is serious I think that your opinion and your input (among those of other prominent classisists) will be very useful. Please, have a look at the article and the discussion! Thanks in advance!

Cheers!--Yannismarou 15:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Arbitration
Hello Paul,

Could we do a check user on ? I think he might be a sockpuppet of. Thanks, Mudaliar 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment to Newyorkbrad
Hi Paul, I think you've got your wires crossed with what Newyorkbrad said. If you reread over the diff, you'll see that Brad wasn't telling Thatcher to get lost, he was saying that he was going to group all his comments together as he didn't want his comments to get lost all over the arbitration page. Think you might have misread it :-) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently the art of satire isn't what it used to be. I was just having a bit of fun ;-) but don't tell Brad. Paul August &#9742; 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right!! Let's just say I was a bit shocked when I read it! I guess that'll teach me to butt into other peoples talk pages :) sorry! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, um, me too. ElinorD (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ... I think I get it now ...  Daniel Bryant  12:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Effort to delete articles
Paul, I noticed that you voted on this article George A. Borgman two years ago. I voted to delete it then because I wasn’t much interested in jazz, however, I do believe now that it is a legitimate article. Something seems to be going on with User:JzG and Calton and for they have made a concerted effort to delete this article among others some being speedily deleted. Maybe you could re-evaluate this article and see whether their complaints have merit. I think just a tag suggesting cleanup or more sources would have been enough. Plank 12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, you made me a very happy bunny! --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

disparaging comments
Hi Paul,

During a recent discussion about Scholarpedia on the MathProject Talk page, User:Jheald considered it a good form to make a disparaging or even insulting comment directed against me. I am not sure if that constitutes a personal attack per Wikipedia policy, but I certainly did not appreciate it, and especially where he posted it. I was somewhat upset over it, actually, and left a comment on his page, which he ignored. Can you, please, take a look? Thank you in advance! Arcfrk 10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arcfrk. Sorry about that. I don't know Jheald, but although he could have chosen his words more carefully, I don't think he intended what he wrote to be insulting. I would try to overlook it if I were you. On a more positive note, I'm glad you pointed out that discussion to me, I found it quite interesting. Best regards, Paul August &#9742; 13:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears Jheald has reconsidered, and replaced the original language with something gentler. If all our conflicts were so pleasantly resolved, we could disband the arbitration committee. :-). --KSmrqT 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If only … I am counting the days till my sentence is over. Is it time yet for another joke? Paul August &#9742; 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right! Thank you for your advise. Regards, Arcfrk 23:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hobbes explains mathematics to Calvin
Yes, time again for a little entertainment. See Calvin and Hobbes 91/06/17. --KSmrqT 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ;-) Paul August &#9742;

Caribbean Coast
Hi,

I found the page: Caribbean Coast, was deleted. Concerning the copyright issue, I would like to rebuild the page with my own information. In fact, the latest version of Caribbean Coast before deletion, had most content from my own. I would be grateful if you could return the source of the deleted page and I will rebuild what i wrote.

I am not sure what Ohconfucius mean about the copyrighted content, at least he/she did not participate in the discussion or to post his/her own edition. At last, Jimfbleak need to prove what is the violation, instead of listen to Mr somebody to delete that page. I would respect Jimfbleak power, but i would disagree Jimfbleak abuse of power without evidence.

Thanks

senatorto

Categorical nonsense
Hi Paul, As an alleged categorical topologist, I'd like to know your thoughts on some categorical nonsense that I splattered onto my user page, about algorithms and algebra. (titled "homology of computing systems"). linas 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Linas, I read your inspired daydream and I found your ideas interesting, you should pursue them. Other than that, I'm afraid I can't scrape up any more useful thoughts at the moment. Note that the operative word there above is "alleged", which conveniently for truths sake, is also in the past tense. ;-) Paul August &#9742; 18:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. As I'm sure you know the phrase "categorical nonsense" is redundant.

RFAR/Betacommand
Thanks. I haven't been paying as much attention to that as I probably should have, as original filer, but I'm glad you aren't letting it casually decay for lack of prosecution. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Always nice to know that someone thinks what you do has some value. Paul August &#9742; 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. I just saw your proposed decision... just reading all that I'm tempted to vote for drawing and quartering, much less arbcom sanctions. I see "every skeleton in every closet" was not an overstatement - remind me never to get you mad. Do you really think he is that bad? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not "mad" (I hope) and I don't think he is "bad", at all. Rather I just think he lacks the good judgment and communication skills we should expect of administrators. If your views differ, please share them on the case pages. It isn't over till it's over. Paul August &#9742; 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Although, It is not quite as nice to know that, while someone thinks what you do has value it is perhaps not as valuable as they had thought, it is still nice to know. And as for my being thorough, please see "personality traits" under "Personal Info" here.
 * That was one complex PS, and I'm not sure I parsed it correctly, but in case I did: please don't take my statement as criticism, simply as amazement at your work. When I brought the case, I did think he was an unrepentant repeat problem admin; 3 prominent incidents in 6 days, with many of the same uncommunicative characteristics, seemed pretty conclusive. But then it was quite a while without major explosions, and several people did speak up for him, so I began to think an intermediate measure was warranted. But then that summing up is pretty damning, you present quite a longer sequence of problems then I had known of. I don't know where to write any of that in the case pages, it's not evidence, it's not workshop proposal, it's just stream-of-consciousness ramblings. In the end, I think I'm going to take real joy at not being an arbitrator, and so being able to let you folks do it, and not having to personally make the tough choice between desysopping a well meaning, poorly communicating, administrator, or possibly not doing it and facing another series of incidents. That's why you folks make the big bucks. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were being critical, but I wanted to allow for the possibility, hence my "perhaps", and "if". In turn, I don't want you to think that my remarks were at all huffy, because they weren't. Rather they were meant to, not only allow for criticism, but to actively encourage it. That is, not only do I appreciate knowing when I'm doing something valuable, I also appreciate knowing when I'm not ;-) I am not so sure of myself to think that the latter never happens. Paul August &#9742; 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Heraclides Ponticus
The problem with putting wikilinks in the references is that it could confuse the reader. Many links in the reference sections of articles are links to websites that contain the referenced information. (See what I have done with Sombrero Galaxy, for example.) After reading several articles in Wikipedia, readers will naturally expect this for all links. The problem with placing links to Wikipedia articles within the references is that it may lead the readers to think that the Wikipedia article used other Wikipedia articles as references. Wikipedia should, of course, avoid referencing itself.

Hence, I removed the wikilinks in the references because they could cause confusion. Does this make sense? (I hope by capital letters were not too loud.) Dr. Submillimeter 06:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * KSmrq pointed out that my corrections go against the recommendations at WP:CITET on using references. Feel free to replace the links.  (Just leave the categories alone.)  Dr. Submillimeter 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for respondoing to my post on your talk page. KSmrq has already replaced the links in that article. Are there other edits that need to be undone? Regards, Paul August &#9742; 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome
Nice to wiki with you again! I'm going to keep a low profile & save my energies for Dean's logic article rewrite. --- Charles Stewart (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Zile
Hi, Can you copy edit the article when you have time? Thanks--Ugur Olgun 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhhh ... why me? Paul August &#9742; 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFAr
Could you fix a signature on wP:RFAr? (You didn't sign; I added a note to your vote, but I think it's best for you to fix it ^-^) - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind note. I have responded on the pending decision talk page as you suggested. I'm somewhat surprised (although I shouldn't be) that anyone would think I was edit warring, but a complete readthrough (as you endured) should show what was happening, that the article was being swarmed by "one-subject" editors for an extended period. Perhaps I could have done things better, but I did approach dispute resolution channels in their established sequence to get more attention from "multiple-subject" editors, instead of treating the articles as some sort of personal fiefdom that only I could defend. Now that attention is forthcoming after two years it is ironically amusing to be labelled (by some) as part of the problem. I can understand it as a pro forma exercise in neutrality, what's good for the goose etc., and am happy to have my actions and edits reviewed, however. One of two things can happen in such a review, I can either learn something about myself if any ensuing criticisms are valid (the motto from my user page: 一字師 "one letter teacher" or "whoever can improve my work by one jot is teaching me") or about the reviewer if they really aren't. I have walked away (in relief) from the FLG project for the most part, but I appreciate the work you are doing, and am willing to help the new process to the best of my ability. --Fire Star 火星 20:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please advise: Special:Contributions/HappyInGeneral
I read your notice, and I agree that there is a revert war going on, which I don't like, so please help me clarify a few things by commenting on my contributions.

The Suppression_of_Falun_Gong page:

- I think that this contribution is essential: because it's well sourced and very relevant to the page. Please review and let me know what you think.

Also the tags are necessary because the current version of Suppression_of_Falun_Gong is hijacked by the POV of Special:Contributions/Samuel_Luo a Falun Gong critic who is proposed for being banned, also you may observe that the contributions of Special:Contributions/Pirate101 and Special:Contributions/Yueyuen are only imitating Samuel Luo's behavior.

I would really like more input on this issue, so please answer. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether that image is appropriate in that article, or if it is, whether it should be at the very beginning of the article &mdash; it is certainly provocative, perhaps even sensationalist. But that is for you and the other editors of that article to decide collectively &mdash; and without edit-warring. I noticed that some editors were willing to accept that image but to place it farther down in the article, yet you have opposed this compromise. Paul August &#9742; 21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A few questions:


 * 1) Is the information well sourced?
 * 2) Is the information relevant?
 * 3) Do we have consensus on that page?


 * My opinion regarding these questions, and please let me know if I'm wrong.


 * 1) Basically if the material is well sourced and relevant it should be in that article.
 * 2) If the article is not on consensus than there should be tags presenting that.
 * 1) If the article is not on consensus than there should be tags presenting that.


 * As far as I see it, I'm acting according to the wikipedia rules and spirit, where Samuel is not, he is even removing tags that show that the article is disputed.


 * But please let me know what you think and how you see this. --HappyInGeneral 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also please note that there was a legitimate section for this on this page however this was deleted: . Abusively and repeatedly.
 * Also please review this section of the evidence page: --HappyInGeneral 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would just add my quick note here. I only say this informally as a matter of personal concern. I don't think that photo belongs in the introduction, and that it would be somewhat unencyclopedic to put it there. It would be leading the readers opinion, obviously. I think part of the reason it was advocated for so strongly by HappyInGeneral was because of the prior blanking of information about the persecution on that page, which actually resulted in the ArbCom case, and the general editing behaviour that has developed around these pages. For example, all templates which indicated that the page was subject to review and that it had problems conforming to wikipedia policies were blanked continually, and tags on the Falun Gong main page which drew attention to problems with some material were continually blanked.

Aside from this, and agreeing that these images should not be used in a wrong way, I feel there is a deep misunderstanding in describing the image as sensationalist. That is a real person who suffered 8 hours of extreme tortured, having her face shocked with electric batons, basically for her beliefs and for doing some exercises, and that is not even the worst of this persecution. It would be like saying "you are not allowed to sing in the street", then the police beating and torturing those people that continued to sing, and would not stop. I don't know if you have thought about it, Paul. I disagree with HappyInGeneral's editing behaviour, and it would appear that so does ArbCom, but I can see it as a result of desperation more than anything else. Wikipedia should just report what third party sources say without any bias, conforming to wikipolicies, so what I am saying now is not really related to these pages.

I was going to say something further, Paul, but I will just recommend you go to this page and read the report: www.organharvestinvestigation.net. I also want to say that there are enough respected third-party sources, not Falun Gong, which document large-scale systematic torture, like beatings with sticks, using fire, electricity, mangling womens' vaginas, people getting tied up in constrained positions for days, injected with drugs so they go blind or go crazy and lose the ability to talk, lose memory, get put in wheelchairs, whatever, any and all cruel things you can think of, all this is documented by sources that are not Falun Gong. Basically I am just writing the note out of concern that you are not fully aware of, or have not had the opportunity to read information about this. There is a psychiatrist Robin Munro who has written a bunch about psychiatric abuses, and the UN Special Rappeuteur for torture, Amnesty International, as well as other NGOS, all have a lot to say about the matter. Maybe you already heard about the organ harvesting report. I really hope you read it.--Asdfg12345 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughts. Re-reading what I wrote above I realize that I didn't express myself very well. The image itself is not "provacative" or "sensationalist" but its use in that article may be. Paul August &#9742; 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In which article do you think that it should be appropriate then? --HappyInGeneral 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, that is for the editors of each article to decide through consensus &mdash; and in particular, without edit warring. Paul August &#9742; 21:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just got a reference to WP:DR from another administrator, so I'll go through that first. PS: it would have been nice to get this a month ago and before the 30+ reverts. Anyway thanks a lot for your input. --HappyInGeneral 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
for this Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand. Creating some semblance of balance, including both rights and responsibilities... well this patches a bit of a gap (beyond any immediate case). Jd2718 12:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. And I appreciate your thanks very much. Paul August &#9742; 14:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

McConn on revert parol for a year?
I've just noticed that this is the conclusion you've come to, and I'm quite surprised. I doubt that there is anything that I can do about your decision, but I still feel the need to defend myself. It's true that I've engaged in edit warring, but rarely have I ever reverted without discussion (in fact using the talk pages to explain each of my edits is something I make a priority of), and rarely have I ever participated in a revert war that wasn't over edits that were quite clearly inappropriate. I believe that I've also been regarded by most other users as very reasonable, including by those that are on the opposing side, such as Firestar and Tomananda. It's rare that people rationally complain about my editing behavior. I also make a point of using the talk pages to discuss content without pushing my opinion about Falun Gong. And because of these things, I haven't felt any warning or threat that some action might be taken against me. I appologize for the fact that I haven't been following the arbitration case or participating in it. This is mostly because I was away from wikipedia for about two months, and only really came back after the pages were opened up to make some edits that I thought were rather straightforward. (I understand now that this was probably wrong and that I should have waited for the arbcom case to finish before making such content changes). Anyway, were I to know or have been warned that my editing behavior has been a problem I would change immediately; you don't need to put me on any kind of restricting parol to do that. I respect your position and understand that you've done your homework, but from my perspective this kind of decision without any warning seems like jumping the gun. Thanks for listening. Mcconn 16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification
Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Clock
I apologize for not giving a fuller explanation for my reversion of Freedom skies' sock edits on clock earlier. Freedom skies (editing as Moerou toukon) cited Subhash Kak. Subhash Kak's views on the history of science are not supported—to say the least—by "the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" and his reputation reflects that. Instead, what he is known for is claiming that any number of scientific discoveries were made in Indian antiquity. See this diff for an example. The column space and primacy that Freedom skies and his socks (or for that matter accomplices like Hkelkar and Bakasuprman) devote to such views gives them undue weight. JFD 05:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir,

JFD brings a diff, this diff.

I respond to JFD's assertions by bringing this :-

When the men of Alexander the great came to Taxila in India in the fourth century BC they found a university there the like of which had not been seen in Greece, a university which taught the three Vedas and the eighteen accomplishments and was still existing when the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien went there about AD 400. -- 'Within the Four Seas: The Dialogue of East and West By Joseph Needham. Published 2004. Routledge. ISBN 0415361664'

The ancient university city of Taxila, on the Indian side of the Indus, lay within the reach of Peshawar. -- ' History of Indian and Indonesian Art 1927 By Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy. Published 2003. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0766158012'

Arab travellers and their teachers came in large numbers to the northern university of Takshashila or Taxila, which was especially famous for medicine. -- 'Indo-West Asian Relations: The Nehru Era By Najma Heptulla. Published 1991. Allied Publishers'

Early biblical references provide accounts of travelling scholars, and interlectual education can be traced to the 272-22 BC reign of Ashoka the great and the establishment of the University of Taxila in Asia minor. -- 'The Psychology of Culture Shock By Colleen A. Ward, Stephen Bochner, Adrian Furnham. Published 2001. Routledge. ISBN 0415162343'

In the early centuries the centre of Buddhist scholarship was the University of Taxila (near the present city of Islamabad) -- 'A History of India By Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund. Published 2004. Routledge. ISBN 0415329191'

[the Buddhist university of] Taxila, beyond the Gupta boundaries, [was] in the fifth century devastated by the Huns -- 'Scholarship and the Gypsy Struggle: commitment in Romani studies. Donald Kenrick. Published 2000. University of Hertfordshire Press. ISBN 1902806018 '

Foreign minister Zulfifar Ali Bhutto arranged for the secretary general to take time out to visit Taxila, seat of the oldest Buddhist university in the world. -- ' United Nations: the first fifty years By Stanley Meisler. Published 1995. Atlantic Monthly Press. ISBN 0871136562'

Taxila university, which is the oldest in the world, has been in existence even before the time of the Buddha and before the occupation of the Taxila valley by the Achaemanid rulers in 6th- 5th century B.C. Probably in the period of the (7th century B.C.) philosophers gathered here to have their own schools of thought and imparted instructions. -- Official Portal of the Government of Pakistan (Pakistani Heritage)

The history of international educational exchange can be traced to the University of Taxila (Taxshashila) in ancient India. -- Indian Education Abstracts By India Ministry of Education, India Central Secretariat Library

The Buddhist influences in northern Pakistan are evident in elaborate buildings at Julian, the Buddhist hill town outside the ruins of Taxila, where a bustling university existed in ancient times to train monks -- 'Culture And Customs of Pakistan By Iftikhar Haider Malik. Published 2005. Greenwood Press. ISBN 031333126X'

Sir,

JFD never appeared on Clock before.

He appeared there right after I did.

This happens a lot.

JFD never edits on articles originally, his interests are my edits; more specifically undoing my edits right after I make them. This has not been happening recently but has been happening in every single field from Buddhism, martial arts, history, countries etc. Whenever I edit anywhwere I find this middle aged man has become obsessed with me right after an hour after my edits and has reverted my edits incessantly.

Recently; I have been afraid to even check his contribs and have had a chill whenever I see the You have a new message sign and even am relieved when I find that it's the Wikipedia Signpost.

This man should not be allowed to wikistalk me; he should not be allowed to get away with the pretence that he magically develops an interest in any topic that I edit on, and has this compelling need to stalk and abuse me on the same topic.

Has he done anything here for the last few days except have dinner and then derive sadistic pleasure by abusing me and following my trail? He does'nt contribute here, Why is he here? To argue with me or to make an encyclopedia for free ? Would that not be done better on a discussion forum somewhere?

What would JFD have done if I had'nt entered this encyclopedia? Make a shrine for me and await my coming so that he can fullfill his destiny of reverting my edits? Why does he not edit on the topics that interest him? Why become obsessed with what I edit and what I do?

I find a middle aged man building templates for me and following me sickening. I have asked him to stop but he simply won't listen. Even his RfA case was'nt based on an event like the recent cases are built upon but was based upon freedom skies disagreed with a few editors and I would like to have him banned so I can undo his edits and drag his name thorugh mud Only a few editors had anything adverse to say about me; some had to be reminded by JFD on who I was. He tracked my contribs for so long that he recorded the names and incidents of every little disagreement that I had and used it to his advantage.

Sir,

I request that JFD be sentenced to stay away from the topics that I have contributed in on grounds of sadistic wikistalking, online bullying, abuse of editorial privilages, libel and defamation, racist commentary and operation with an intention to clash with me and not with an intention to contribute to this encyclopedia.

JFD has yet to reply to the arbcom request for clarification and can't even put a code with / in this version while he puts footnotes.

Freedom skies 06:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Now JFD blanked all content from this Draft of article published in the Encyclopedia of World Environmental History, Berkshire/Routledge, 2003. Alan Macfarlane which I bought to cite on Tea. He'll follow me and will delete every one of my edits with zeal and intent unless a decree is passed prohibiting him to engage in such acts. Freedom skies 06:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited Zen/Chan, Bodhidharma, Shaolin Monastery, Shaolin Kung Fu and Kalarippayattu as early as July 2005; Freedom skies didn't edit these articles until October/November 2006, starting edit wars in Zen/Chan and Bodhidharma.

As early as May 2006, I edited Vajramushti, which Freedom skies didn't edit until August of that year.

I first edited Tea in June 2006; Freedom skies first edits Tea in March 2007 (as sockpuppet Phillip Rosenthal). By the way, look at how much of a nationalist I'm not being in my edit and how Freedom skies (as sockpuppet Phillip Rosenthal) is deleting sourced content in his.

In July 2006 I edited Gunpowder, which Freedom skies doesn't edit until April 2007 (as sockpuppet Moerou toukon).

I first edit Batuo, Origins of Kalarippayattu, and Huike in August 2006; Freedom skies didn't edit these articles until October 2006, November 2006, and February 2007 (as sockpuppet Phillip Rosenthal), respectively.

It sounds more like Freedom skies is wikistalking me.Definitely sounds like he's wikistalking me. Speaking of which, why in the heck has he followed me to your talk page? I only came here to give you the explanation you asked for.If Freedom skies is held to his own standard, does it mean that he'd be banned from articles to which I've contributed first?Adding sources, reverting vandalism...same old, same old.If I need to reply to something from the Arbitration Committee, I'm unaware of it. Please let me know if I do.Slipped my mind. I'll fix that right away.

Paul, I'm sorry that this has taken up so much of your Talk page. I've tried to be as brief as I can. JFD 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I entered wiki on 08:18, 6 November 2005. The question of JFD's pattern of incessant wikistalking is deliberately being meshed with his edits before my entry.

My edits to Bodhidharma led to the present version; as compared to the PRC propoganda piece that JFD tried to push.

He edited on Vajramushti?

I did'nt even know that and can you blame me?

His work consisted resulted in this, unsourced stub class article.

In fact, third paries contributed to that article in significant ways; neither I not JFD.

He's using it to say that I wikistalked him ?

I never knew that JFD edited here as well, neither have I undone his work.

He has been editing a large set of articles that had recently been edited by me. It happens everytime. By JFD's own admission I appeared months after JFD edited on Zen/Chan, Bodhidharma, Shaolin Monastery, Shaolin Kung Fu, Kalarippayattu, Vajra Mushti, Tea, Gunpowder, Batuo, Huike, and Origins of Kalrippayattu.

JFD has been worse since 21:00, 15 March 2007. Since then he has done almost nothing else but become obssessed with putting me away and undoing my edits.

Now he'll simply follow my contribs to blank everything with disregard. He'll be editing a large set of articles that had recently been edited by me and will simply blank everything.

Freedom skies 18:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

HenryG case
Hi... I saw this: .. seemed a reasonable action by a clerk, the case was "fast tracked". Then I saw this: which totally confused me. Why did you revert NYBrad's action? Seems rather process wonky not to let the case get opened expeditiously. Are you someone that feels process is more important than doing the right thing efficiently? This case has overwhelming votes to open, many arbitrators seem to want it done right away, and NYBrad is a very good clerk. Wasn't it a bit of a slap to him to revert him that way? Aren't you going against consensus of the rest of the arbitration team by standing on process? (...you can answer here, I'll watch...) ++Lar: t/c 12:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is important to give some minimum time for the "accused" and others to respond to the accusations. We can expedite things as necessary in an emergency. But I see no need to rush things here. Due process is also important. Supposing following process to be an alternative to "doing the right thing efficiently" is a bit simplistic. Appropriate process is part of how we determine what the "right thing" is. Society needs to be governed by dispassionate law, not by whatever the local group, first on the scene happens to believe, in the heat of the moment, is the "right thing". I have nothing but the highest regard and respect for Newyorkbrad and he is certainly an excellent clerk. His actions here were perfectly reasonable. I was sorry to have had to "overrule" his opening of the case and told him so. In addition there was discussion on how to handle this case, including some participation by Newyorkbrad and Thatcher131, on the Arbitration Committee's mailing list, and the mailing list was informed of my views and actions with regard to them. Paul August &#9742; 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lar, thanks for your concern. It certainly makes the job of the Arbitration Committee Clerks more interesting when we get conflicting instructions from the different arbitrators. But in this instance, no harm done, and I know that things often are much the same for court clerks of multi-judge courts in the real world. Some of my off-wiki original research is in U.S. Supreme Court history, and after reading through the papers of Walter Wyatt, who struggled with being told to do one thing by Justice Frankfurter and another by Justice Douglas and a third by Chief Justice Warren, I don't think I have it so bad. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, when this happens the correct clerk response is "Please, sir, may I have another!" Thatcher131 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and you'll never know how it so pleases the Committee, to make your lives as clerks as difficult as possible ;-) Paul August &#9742; 16:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I will have to run for arbitrator myself, just to see what life is like on the other side of the curtain. :) Newyorkbrad 16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A few points. First, I think what was being expedited here by NYB was merely opening the case, not rushing to a decision. I don't really see how "giving the accused time to respond" has any actual bearing in this instance, they'll have plenty of time to respond during the case. Also, hasn't the "accused" basically been blowing everyone off for a month already? Second, while it may be true that "society needs to be governed by dispassionate law", this isn't actually a democracy, nor is it a society... people don't have rights, there is no specific due process to follow, and it's not actually run by the rule of law. What it actually is, is a project to do something, to make something. Arbitration is a means to that end, that of creating an encyclopedia efficiently and harmoniously, not some system of justice that exists for its own sake. That you term your action "overrule" in this matter rather than "go against apparent consensus" strikes me as an issue in its own right... you aren't a judge, just one of us that we selected by consensus to help make things go smoothly. Third, NYB is, in my view, too nice a guy to give you a hard time about making things difficult for him, but that is you did. Once the case was opened, to go ahead and close it again so that it could be around for 24 more hours strikes me as really just a waste of everyone's time for no apparent reason. Fourth, I'm not privy to the arbcom mailing list but I do have to wonder what was said to you privately about this matter. I would be greatly surprised if it was uniformly positive.  In summation, it's my view that you messed up, and you could either dig in now and defend in depth, or just admit that in hindsight it perhaps wasn't the very best idea overall to summarily revert a clerk without discussing it privately with him first. You should apologise for that, and move on. It was a relatively minor mess up but a mess up just the same. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There probably was a better way to have handled the situation, there almost always is. And again I apologize for making clerk-life more difficult for Newyorkbrad. Paul August &#9742; 04:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tnx
for that: Zeq 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Paul August &#9742; 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

" The name "Pinocchio" is from Toscany and means : "pine nut" or "kernel". "
You should never have been taught to read because, apparently, it just didn't take.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.110.202.41 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Can you explain ?
Hi Paul,

I fail to understand where in this did I made any edit which disrupts wikipedia: and why this accusation is not presented in the work shop and evidence pages so it can be commented and responded too.

On the other hand there is ton of edit-war and other evidence against Zero's editing which is not even considered.

Thank You. Zeq 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW
Hey Paul, I dialed a Complex number! What so I do now? I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work
Hi, Paul, don't think we've met, but I tend to have an eye on arbitration matters, and I just wanted to say I think you do a great job. I find your comments and insights are typically among the wisest offered. So, keep up the work (it can't be much fun to deal with the worst disputes on Wikipedia, but someone's got to do it!) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Paul August &#9742; 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Hawaiian English
Someone recently redirected the talk page to follow the article merge. I reversed it, as the talk page was redirecting to the article page, but I think we need a soft redirect, See Also, or merge of the talk page to that of the article the page was merged into. Any ideas? &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think things are just fine the way they are. Paul August &#9742; 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible article?
Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:


 * Flora and fauna of Greenland

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal Arbitration case
I know you're going to be away for a few more days but I wanted to post this so you'll see it when you return. I realized you accepted to work on the paranormal arb case. I wanted to know when you would start working on it. I also wanted to request that when you do, you add [] and [] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area []. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for. Also please add [] and []. Thanks. Wikidudeman  (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration status
Hi and welcome back (I hope soon). Upon your return, you'll notice that the list of arbitration cases is similar to how it looked when you left. You were moved to "away" while you were away, so please let us know whether you'd like to be restored to active status on all pending cases, or only on cases accepted after your return, or whether you'd like to handle it on a case-by-case basis. Hope you had a good trip and break. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Brad. Case-by-case seems best. It may take me awhile to get back into the swing of things. It was a good trip, but too short. Paul August &#9742; 12:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll make a note on our noticeboard to only move you to active on cases where you request it or cast a vote. But please dig in, there's plenty to do. :) Newyorkbrad 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Newton and Leibniz
Hello Paul, I understand that you are a mathematician. In light of this fact, I was wondering if you could help me correct all of the wikipedia articles having to do with Newton and Leibniz. Recently some very exiting evidence came out with regards to these two men(a until recently unknown correspondence!). However, I do not want to spoil it for you. Please let me know if you are willing to help me out, thanks --Cronholm144 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Chronholm, thanks for the offer, but I'm a bit busy these days. Paul August &#9742; 17:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Aww... Paul, I was trying to cheer you up, that paper is an April fool's joke. I know you have been down with all the Arbitration recently and Ksmrq suggested that I add a little bit of humour to your wikilife. The paper is rather short and clever, certainly a fun read whether you are in on the joke or not. Cheers and remember that you have friends at WP:WPM--Cronholm144 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed the joke, although I was a bit skeptical. I clicked on the link but didn't read any of it because the font was uncomfortably small for my tired old eyes. Thanks for bringing some levity into my wikiworld, and your other kind words. Paul August &#9742; 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I hope you can drop by WT:WPM sometime soon, I think you might find the atmosphere refreshing. I wish you all the best and hope that our paths will cross again. --Cronholm144 18:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)