User talk:Paul August/Archive18

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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia?" See 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 Wikipedia (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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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. &mdash; 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 &#9742; 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 &#9742; 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 &#9742; 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 Wikipedia 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 01:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

FYI
FYI - question. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied there. Paul August &#9742; 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)