User talk:Paul August/Archive19

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 Talk 04:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that I'll look into it (perhaps it was an ec). Paul August &#9742; 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 Talk 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 &#9742; 04:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Thanks! Best wishes to you as well. Paul August &#9742; 04:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What is part of mathematics
Paul, you may be interested in the following discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject 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 &#9742; 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. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Roman inquires
Your input would be appreciated at
 * Reference desk/Humanities
 * Reference desk/Humanities
 * Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't think I have anything useful to say there. Paul August &#9742; 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 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 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 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 &#9742; 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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 &#9742; 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For this case, there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 3 who are inactive and 1 who is recused, so 7 support votes are a majority. = this says the recusals should not be used in the count. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is one arb recused on the entire case, Cool Hand Luke, and three arbs inactive Carcharoth, Hersfold , and Wizardman. That leaves 13 active arbs for this case. However on finding 6A, Risker has recused and Mailer Diablo has abstained. That leaves 11 arbs active on this particular finding, thus the majority for this finding is 6. Paul August &#9742; 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Arbitrator recuses from the entire case, they are not counted in the total votes on that case.
 * 2) Arbitrator does not recuse from the entire case, and recuses partially. Their votes marked "recuse" are counted as votes as "abstain" ???
 * What's the problem? This has always how things have been counted. A recusal for the entire case reduces the number of active arbs for that case by one. A recusal on a particular proposal reduces the number of active arbs for that proposal by one. Paul August &#9742; 20:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And also, don't opposes count against the supports? Cirt (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Paul August &#9742; 20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think it is wholly inappropriate for a "recuse" to be counted in the same manner as an "abstain". Cirt (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused about how abstains work then. Neither recusals nor abstains are technically "votes", both simply act to reduce the number of voters. Paul August &#9742; 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but they are supposed to do that in different ways. See . Cirt (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No they are not (see my reply there) Paul August &#9742; 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, thank you very much Paul August for your very polite and helpful explanations during all this. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope you understand now. Paul August &#9742; 21:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So ... if I am understanding this correctly, an "abstain" ( or a recuse ) reduces the number of votes needed for a particular decision to pass, so an "abstain" is sort of like a "weak support"? Cirt (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In effect yes. And taking no action at all is in effect an oppose. Paul August &#9742; 21:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod, thanks. It seems sometimes Arbitrators vote an "abstain", and then add some comment which is a comment in effect in opposition to the remedy in question, perhaps not realizing that by abstaining they are furthering its passage. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, especially for new arbs. Paul August &#9742; 21:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul August, thanks again very very much for your candor and especially for being so polite and kind with me in your responses regarding this. Yours, Cirt (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mind closing an RfC?
Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking has now been open for 32 days; with only four comments in the past 10 days. RFCBot ran off with the RfC tag two days ago; it's easily time for it to be closed. Due to the nature of the issue, no administrator is truly "uninvolved", but one who is especially well-respected by the community, such as yourself; are the closest thing we've got. Fancy making a close? For reference, I'm contacting former arbitrators who hold admin tools but no other bits. Cheers, Happy ‑ melon  19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote Change
The template is deprecated, so I thought that they should be changed. I think the reason is because we should not be talking about an article in a hatnote. Explanations prepared if required.174.3.98.236 (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the template is deprecated, and can be replaced with template:about. Paul August &#9742; 02:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

History of logic
After some years of gestation, this article is now largely finished. I am thinking of taking it to FA but would like some thoughts from people first, as I have heard such bad things about this process. It should go there one day, the history of logic is one of the top 50 articles that should be in an encyclopedia. I welcome any thoughts.HistorianofLogic (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Paul August &#9742; 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing titles on sections
Hi Paul. Thanks for changing the title of my request for clarification. In fact you changed it from a correct title to an incorrect title. You are not the first to try the same change so I have changed it back and noted in big letters now. Do you think that it would be clear now with the big letters because the change you and one other editor made... it definitely wasn't correct? Thanks. ~ R.T.G 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have replied to you on my talk page. ~ R.T.G 14:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Articles
I've been reading your articles WAY longer than I've been a user, and they rock! They are probably the best sourced, most knowledgeable, and most reliable articles that I've seen! Are you a college professor? Your expertise and writing style make me suspect this. WikiDude1776 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Pandora's Box
Hi Paul. We've collaborated before a long time ago on WP. I was wondering if you could have a look at the Pandora's box article, especially with recently added material on the feminist interpretation which seems to have a lot of OR and POV. It feels fiddly. Ideas? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob. I'll take a look. Paul August &#9742; 02:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now had a look at the recent addition and I agree that it looks like OR and have removed it. Paul August &#9742; 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Paul, for looking and taking action on it. There was a scholarly article by Dr. Jenifer Neils on the topic which I had read in a compendium book and included a long time ago in the article. To wit:
 * Neils, Jenifer, The Girl in the Pithos: Hesiod’s Elpis, in "Periklean Athens and its Legacy. Problems and Perspectives", eds. J. M. Barringer and J. M. Hurwit (Austin: University of Texas Press), 2005, pp.37-45.
 * But I hadn't ever recalled reading anything anywhere which resembled what was added in that section. Best wishes ever and many thanks. See you sometime on Mass Ave. ;) --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more).  I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:


 * User:Peter Damian (old)
 * User:HistorianofLogic
 * User:Logicist
 * User:Here today, gone tomorrow
 * User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This user has been blocked for ban evasion. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The request above
Some more (or at least hopefully a little more correct) diffs:     . Best regards, Bishonen | talk 02:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks, I hadn't noticed that discussion. Paul August &#9742; 04:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Works and Days, etc.
Another query for an opinion, Paul. Special:Contributions/Indike001 seems to have summarized without citations? See Works and Days, for one of many examples and the addition of the "subjects" section. Thoughts? -- if you have time. Is it OR or on the up and up? Best wishes and many thanks in advance. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look later. Paul August &#9742; 02:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Paul, any time you have would be appreciated. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rf
Template:Rf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ent
Template:Ent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Can you explain ...
In a nutshell - no I can't. I have been trying to revert vandalism, not cause it. certainly in that last example you gave I was reverting the comments left by the previous user and left a comment at their talk page here: User talk:64.219.39.208. So I'm confused. --Wintonian (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could I ask if you know of any reason for these edits as I am still confused and I am a bit worried that I have done something wrong and wish to correct that? These edits were not intentional and any advice would be appreciated. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why those edits happened. But I notice they were all made with Twinkle, so perhaps there is a bug in that software. You might want to review the Twinkle documentation and ask about your situation at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. Paul August &#9742; 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for getting back to me, I'll have another look at the manual, I assume some else was trying to revert the edits at the same time as me. So long as I haven’t done anything wrong, as a newbie I am trying to do things the right way and am grateful for any proper assistance that will help me.--Wintonian (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * GIven that Twinkle may have bugs, or unintended consequences (I don't know I have no experience with it), it is incumbent on you when using it (or other such software) that you check that each edit had the intended result. Paul August &#9742; 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I also ask if you were assuming that I was the vandal at the start? Given the evidence that’s fine. Though as I said I will look through the manual again and I take on board the need to check, I will also say that the user is shown a confirmation page of the changes as far as I can remember – I haven’t use it for vandal fighting since you alerted me to the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 02:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No I didn't think you were a vandal, it was fairly obvious to me that the edits were unintentional. Paul August &#9742; 02:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats good to hear, Sorry to keep asking you questions but is it ok for me to bash those vandals over the head again?--Wintonian (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were me I'd want to try and find out more about how/why this happened first before I continued to use that software. Have you asked at the talk page I mentioned above? Paul August &#9742; 02:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No ofcourse. I ment after I have looked into the issue--Wintonian (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page deletion
If you have a moment, can you answer a question? Does this make any sense? How can a bot delete an article talk page? I have never heard of such a thing. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 13:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See the page User:WildBot, and in particular the section Why does WildBot want my article deleted?. Does that make sense? Paul August &#9742; 13:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes perfect sense. Thank you. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  13:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Logic after WW2
The FAC is going well but the section on post-war developments needs some help. As I have said, I am not an expert on modern logic at all. Is it true that there was a period of consolidation after WWII? Was forcing the only result of significance? Do we mention 'reverse mathematics'? Help needed!!! From the other side (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about this, I'd have to do some reasearch. Have you asked Charles Stewart? CBM and Trovatore might know something. I can ask them and also post a note at the mathematics project for you. Paul August &#9742; 15:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already asked Charles but he away right now. If you could notify the others, yes please.  Thank you.  From the other side (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked Carl and Trovatore and posted a general query here. Paul August &#9742; 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * :o)   From the other side (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Paul August/Subpage 7
Just wanted to point out that fn and fnb are up for deletion and no longer work. You may want to update your sub-page. Cheers. something lame from CBW 11:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which sub-page would that be? Paul August &#9742; 11:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind I see now. Paul August &#9742; 11:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)