User talk:Paul August/Archive2

User:Bastard Administrator
(I noticed that you moved my user page back from User:Paul August (bastard administrator). Thanks. I assume some kind soul moved it there. Out of curiosity do you know who? Paul August  &#9742; 06:05, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC))

See Vandalism in progress, under "Bastard Administrator". -- Curps 06:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Featured article star image problem
(''Copied from User talk:Avsa. Paul August &#9742; 22:16, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC))

Hello Avsa. I like your fractal star images, currently being used in the "Featured article" template. But the single "star point"



has a problem. It seems to have two "smudges"  a larger one just above an a bit to the left, and a smaller one to the left. Can this be fixed? Paul August &#9742; 16:06, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * There you go. It was a shadow from the big star. Alexandre Van de Sande 02:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August &#9742; 04:28, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mathematics not an art?
(''Copied form User talk:Sean Kelly. Paul August &#9742; 22:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC))

Hi Sean. In the Mathematics article, I noticed that you changed: "Some say that mathematics is not a science at all, rather an art" to simply: "Some say that mathematics is not a science at all" with the edit summary of "woa woa... math is definitely in no way an art". While you may not consider it so, I can assure you that very many mathematicians (myself and the many mathematicians that I know, included) do consider it to be an art. See for example: Mathematical beauty. Or do a Google search on "mathematics as art". Regards, Paul August &#9742; 19:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Mathematics is artistic, but not an art. Things that are artistic are beautiful, pleasant to behold, and consonant, like mathematics.  Things that are art are created, in the physical world, and exist to be appreciated, all of which mathematics is not.  Do you share this distinction?
 * Secondly, the passage as it was originally given is misleading. IMHO, to the average person, "Some say that mathematics is not a science at all, rather an art" would not convey the idea you and I (and the many mathematicians that you know) share, which is that mathematics is beautiful. --Sean Kelly 21:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No I'm afraid I don't share the distinction you make above. Mathematics is no less "physical" than poetry and, in the opinion of many mathematicians, no less artful. I'm not so interested in arguing whether mathematics is or is not an art, rather I'm trying to make you understand that, whether they are right or not, many mathematicians regard it as such. Paul August &#9742; 23:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I could see something like, "The way you write your proofs is an art," or "Making connections between polytopes and the sphere packing problem is an art." But these sentences describe the pleasure we get when we think about their aesthetics, not their nature.  Their nature is not to please, but to be valid.
 * Well either way, I will stop babbling and accept your point that most mathematicians consider mathematics an art. It just give me goosebumps is all.  --Sean Kelly 13:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Alesia
Dear Paul, thanks for your support. And let me tell you one thing i love about wikipedia: cooperation. The edits you made were great, i'm glad you made them. Cheers, muriel@pt 15:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's an excellent article, You've done a great job with it. I'm glad you like the edits I've made. Cooperation is so much better than the alternative ;-) Regards. Paul August &#9742; 17:41, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Muriel, I've made a few more edits. I hope you like them. If you have a problem with any of them, let me know ;-) Paul August  &#9742; 21:56, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please check]]
Can you please check out Classical definition of republic, I think the article of Sparta has it wrong on the type of goverment. Please get back to me. Thanks. WHEELER 14:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re PlanetMath
Feel free to post a summary on the WP in math talk page. Perhaps even post it in a new heading to get more attention. Your summary before was good, but if you have something to add to it, go ahead. CryptoDerk 06:10, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflicts and a question
I've had some edit conflicts with you recently... I listed that I'd be working in 00 General. Also, you wrote that the WP articles are more complete on than PM's article here. I don't see that our proof articles discuss what PM calls an "existential proof". Can you direct me to where you found this and create a relevant redirect? CryptoDerk 06:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * No big deal about the edit conflicts thing. Just want to make sure we don't copy over the same article at the same time :o  Also, thanks for clearing up the existential proof thing.  CryptoDerk 06:34, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Erdos
Why do you say that the Erdos title is ok now? It looks exactly the same to me. --Zero 10:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Zero0000, what is wrong with the title for Erdös number? It looks ok to me. Doesn't the "umlaut" over the "o" display for you? Paul August &#9742; 15:29, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

An umlaut is incorrect, that's the point. It is supposed to be a Hungarian mark like an umlaut with long strokes instead of dots. It doesn't work in titles because it is not in the Latin-1 character set. I'll put back the comment. --Zero 11:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Sorry. Paul August &#9742; 14:34, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Conway vs Conway's, SPA, and a note
My bad on that one. In my search for a previously existing article I didn't run across it and since we had an article called "Knuth's ..." I figured that if we had one, we would most certainly have one under the name "Conway's ...". That being said, maybe we should try to make them consistent. I'll check the naming conventions if you don't get to it first. Also, just a note regarding stats, by looking at the "What links here" on planetmath & planetmath reference templates you can get some rough stats, but you'll have to manually throw out some pages (of course, this doesn't help you on articles where WP articles are adequate or superior). Regarding SPA, it looks like Oleg's already on top of that, but feel free to move it as appropriate. CryptoDerk 17:00, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure?
Oleg, are you sure you are not Zundark?

Thanks for fixing my typo, I don't quite understand how this error occured. By the way, are you standing over my shoulder, watching everything I do? I'd better put some clothes on I quess ;-) Paul August &#9742; 20:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you want me to tell you what you ate last night? :)


 * Well, I have your page on my watchlist, as you probably have mine. It is a bit unethical to spy on people, but I cannot abstain. :)


 * About the error, most likely it was a database thing. Oleg Alexandrov 20:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * PS I read a joke somewhere. A Peeping Tom was upset. Three times in a row, his victims did not do anything but watch TV all evening. :) Oleg Alexandrov

Template:Unicode

 * Hi Phil, can you explain to me the difference between, and or the advantage of, using instead of &amp;empty;. They both display the same thing for me (Safari, Firefox or IE, on Mac OSX). I know that IE on windows often (always?) fails to render &amp;empty; will this fix that? Thanks in advance. Paul August  &#9742; 17:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Phil Boswell, Paul August  &#9742; 19:25, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC))

You hit the nail on the head: on my browser (IE6 on XP-Pro)  displays as an empty box (&ldquo;&empty;&rdquo;), whilst   displays as the empty set (&ldquo;&empty;&rdquo;). You're probably lucky and both display the same. --Phil | Talk 09:18, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Will this work for everyone using IE on windows? Or are there still font issues? I would dearly like to get rid of the ugly "{}" notation used in some places on WP, see: empty set and talk:empty set. Paul August &#9742; 19:25, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Homoians and Arians
Hi there Paul -- I posted a long-ish response to your query over at Talk:Theodosius_I. --Jfruh 21:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jfruh: Thanks for responding to my questions on Talk:Theodosius_I. I've finnally replied there &mdash; with more questions I'm afraid ;-) Paul August  &#9742; 23:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul -- Saw your quite cogent questions and have been thinking of the best way to respond and/or make the article better. Unfortunately I'm under a big pile of real-world work at the moment. Should be able to respond at length in the next few days. Very briefly: The two refernces to "Arians" in the article that you note were originally "Homoians" but changed by the anonymous editor; and the Homoiousions did share aspects of the Arian theology that you cite, with the important difference that they did not view Jesus as "created" or "inferior" as the Arians did. The "homoi" construction was an attempt to avoid the homoousion-homoiousion debate altogether. I've been trying to formulate a new version of the article that is accurate on these subjects without getting into needless depth. More to come! --Jfruh 01:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul -- Finally got around to updating Theodosius I, and Arianism to boot. I decided to leave out the "homoian" name, since it's strictly speaking an invention of modern historians. Let me know what you thnk. --Jfruh 06:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jfruh, I had just finished reading your update to Theodosius_I, when I got your message ;-) On first pass you seem to have delt with the issues rather well I think. But I want to think about them some more, and also read the Arianism article, before I comment any more. Paul August &#9742; 06:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Wikiportal
I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Block of Adolf Hitler

 * Hi GeneralPatton, I have no problems with any of your actions surrounding your protecting the article Adolf Hitler. However I think whenever an article is protected, it is best if an explanation is given on the talk page of that article. I have posted the following on Talk:Adolf Hitler:


 * Although I think the block was probably warranted, I would appreciate an explanation here as to what the situation is with regard to the block. Specifically the reasons for the block, and when and under what circumstances the block will be lifted. I think it is always helpful to explain these things on the talk page whenever a block occurs. Thanks. Paul August &#9742; 17:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you mind responding there? (In addition, you can, of course, if you like, also make a more personal response either here or on my talk page ;-) Thanks. Paul August &#9742; 17:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I have answered your inquiry over at Talk:Adolf Hitler. GeneralPatton 22:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Paul August &#9742; 23:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to ask anything in specific if you want. GeneralPatton 23:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Italics/bolding
It is standard practice not only on mathematics articles, but on articles in general, to bold the title word and synonyms thereof when they first occur, once. To bold key terms introduces a conflict since these key terms are not synonyms of the title. The best way of proceeding then is to italicise key terms.

I understand where some pages have been merged then the bolding has not been modified, but where this has not occurred, there may need to be a change in formatting. Thanks Dysprosia 00:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

en-Dashes
Too bad- they're ugly. So far as any contrast between significant and reviled, I think it's much more powerful and interesting without the dash, which seems to imply hesitation and qualification, but this amounts to an esthetic thing. Wyss 19:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Z is a cyclic group
Thanks for catching my typo (leaving out infinite) on integer. You also changed:

"Z is an example of a what is called a cyclic group. This follows from the fact that any integer can be expressed as the addition or subtraction of a finite number of 1s"

to:

"Z is a cyclic group, meaning that any integer can be expressed as the addition or subtraction of a finite number of 1s."

However I think the previous wording is better. Cyclic means that there exists a given element a such that every element is equal to a power of a. That Z is cyclic, follows from the fact that 1 (or -1) is such an element.

Paul August &#9742; 22:33, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. Technically "cyclic" doesn't mean that "any integer can be expressed as the addition or subtraction of a finite number of 1s."  I suspect that the distinction will be lost on anyone who doesn't already know what "cyclic" means.  How about "since" instead of "meaning that"?  dbenbenn | talk 02:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Since" is fine. Paul August &#9742; 04:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE VOTE

 * Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 19:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attalus immortal
I'm amazed at the number of WPans who caught that piece. The interviewer picked a good quote from a long interview. That article highlights the very essence of Wikipedia; not a thousand minor edits punctuated by vandalism, but a dozen major edits punctuated by errors, corrections, thorough analysis and fact-checking. (I particularly like the fact that originally, both the YOB and the coin image were wrong...)

btw, please come to the next cambridge-area wikipedia dinner... Bring family and friends! Last time, someone brought ten guests, which outnumbered the rest of us, but it was still a good time. cf. Meetup/Boston +sj + 06:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Need Help
The article vanavsos is up for deletion. Can you please help in this regard. Second, I am having difficulty with Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic and am having trouble on Talk:Republic because they won't allow an external link. It was deleted off of Wikipedia, and I believe it needs to come back on. A serious mistake in deleting this article. Thanks for your time.WHEELER 18:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've read over vanavsos and the associated vfd debate, and although I think the page may contain some original research which needs to be cleaned up and perhaps a new title, I've voted to keep for now. Paul August &#9742; 21:43, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:Larsie
I have clarified at Talk:Lesch-Nyhan_syndrome -- Curps 23:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Paul August &#9742; 21:47, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening
I am having trouble with classical works and definitions. It seems that User:Snowspinner is out to get me and destroy all classical works.

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the request for arbitration against you. Please bring evidence to Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:19, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Can I get your help in this regard? WHEELER 14:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what help I can provide in this matter. However, I will follow the issue, and do whatever seems appropriate to me. Paul August &#9742; 21:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Classics link
There is a page classicists can link up on and it is here at: List of Wikipedians by fields of interest C-D. I invite you to place your name so that Classicists can find each other and corroborate on things together. Thank you for your time.WHEELER 18:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for inviting me to add my name to List of Wikipedians by fields of interest C-D. However, although I'm very interested in the classics (I've read Plato and Aristotle and lots more), I was trained as a mathematician, and I hardly qualify as a classicist. Paul August &#9742; 22:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

NBG set theory
I fully agree with your idea of renaming Von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel axioms to Von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory. Thanks for the kind words and suggestions!

--Dustinmulcahey 19:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

table for list of participants
Hi Paul. Maybe nothing will come out of this, and I am still ambivalent about the table, but I had a little time and wrote a small script to spit out the table (the pattern is quite predicatable, and I did not even have to learn the syntax of the Wiki table). Anyway, take a look at User:Oleg Alexandrov/Test page2 to see what I've got. Oleg Alexandrov 20:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Very nice! I had thought the usernames could be in alphabetical order, but maybe that's too compulsive :) They probably wouldn't stay that way anyway. So does this mean you're warming up to the table idea? Or are you just showing off :) I wish I could trade my little knowledge of table syntax for your obvious (Perl is it?) expertise ;-)  By the way, after all of us taking a PlanetMath break, I see progress is once again being made, plus we have a new helper! Regards, Paul August  &#9742; 21:42, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)  (P.S. sorry to have disagreed with you on the "Boundedness debate", I was a bit concerned that you misread my feeble attempt at humor there ;-)


 * I realised after I posted that message you will want a sorted version. I posted it now on User:Oleg Alexandrov/Test page2. Please note that sorting things alphabetically makes some comments have less sense, as they used to refer to what was above. But that matters little.


 * Yes it was Perl, and actually a very simple code.


 * On the "Boundedness debate", your comment was entirely appropriate, and I got the humor.


 * About WP:PMEX. Yes, having Linas over woke us up a bit. Now I am ironing the last bugs from the planetmath update sript (not that we ran out of things to do :) Oleg Alexandrov 21:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Just fixed an embarrasing bug over there, which made some red links. Oleg Alexandrov 21:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After consulting my inner self for the better half of yesterday and this morning, I must honestly say that the reason for writing that script was to indeed show off. (It is hard to fight against the sinful nature :) Oleg Alexandrov 16:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I much prefer the table, so I'll wait for it to replace the old list.MarSch 15:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Math project participants list
Hi Oleg, I've taken your participants table and updated it like so:

User:Paul August/Subpage 13

What do you think? Besides the two users, stochata and Tomo who have replied in favor of the table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, another user MarSch, on my talk page has said he likes the tabular form as well. I would have preferred to have heard from some of the more senior participants, but I'm inclined to go ahead with this anyway, unless you are still opposed. I have to say your script generated table has made it too hard for me to resist, so you are hoist on your own Perl petard, so to speak ;-)

Paul August &#9742; 21:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * You made a good case for the table. And it is not hard to fill in, one just needs to copy a row from above, and rewrite some of that info.


 * Most people did not reply because I think nobody cares :) So the best thing to do is, as you plan, to just go ahead with it. Oleg Alexandrov 21:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * PS The table looks good. Oleg Alexandrov 21:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. Yes I'm assuming that most people are indifferent. I will go ahead then. Your script made it much easier. Paul August &#9742; 21:29, Mar 18,

Check it out
We have an unmitigated disaster on our hands. Please check out republic. And I don't know what I am talking about.WHEELER 16:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User 65.39.159.10
Hi Sannse. FYI, I noticed that you blocked IP 65.39.159.10 for vandalism (I presume). Well the IP seems now to be unblocked and back to vandalizing, see: []. Paul August &#9742; 14:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like an isolated one, but he can be blocked quickly enough if it continues. Best to report such things at WP:VIP or WP:AN though, you are more likely to catch someone there is quick action is needed - I've been mostly away for a week or two -- sannse (talk) 23:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sannse. Yes, I could see that the IP wasn't going on a vandalism spree. But I wanted to give you a heads-up since you had had some experience with the IP. Paul August &#9742; 13:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Merging Graph theory and Graph (mathematics)
Hi Xiong. I noticed your comment about merging Graph theory and Graph (mathematics) at Duplicate articles. This was discussed at some length here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Graph_.28mathematics.29_vs_Graph_theory. The majority view was to keep them seperate. Paul August &#9742; 21:38, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. Please see my detailed comment there, at the bottom of the discussion. You are first in line to be tapped as my buddy expert. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 02:55, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help any way I can. But I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this field. You might want to look here WikiProject Mathematics/Participants, for people more qualified (besides the other editors of those pages of course). Paul August &#9742; 13:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * As you suggest, the editors of those pages probably know more about the field than anyone else. Don't worry; they'll be all over the refactored content, looking for things to pick at. They're certainly the wrong ones to midwife the refactoring itself, wouldn't you say?


 * I have a fair background myself, but I'll feel better knowing there is another hot body signed onto this project, willing to look it over as I go and cover my blind spot. Your demonstrated interest outweighs your self-declared shortcomings; besides, you openly state on your user page that you are a topologist. If the article goes over your head, it's too advanced for a general-interest encyclopedia.


 * May I consider you on board? &mdash; Xiong (talk) 15:19, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I'm not so inclined, as you, to discount the possible help you might get from the past editors of those articles, as well as others on WikiProject Mathematics/Participants (did you look there?) I'm familiar with many of them and have alot of respect for their opinions. Also I would encourage you to discuss your changes on the various talk pages. As for my help, all I can promise is that I will put all of the related articles on my watchlist, and respond as seems appropriate. Please feel free to ask for my input, whenever you like, and I will try to give it, as time, interest and expertise allow. Also I will be away for the next three weeks, on vacation. Happy editing. Paul August &#9742; 15:38, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, as for saying on my user page that I am a topologist (actually it says "Alleged Categorical Topologist"), that's true, however notice it also says that I was "Once Considered Talented", the operative word being once. Paul August &#9742; 16:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't discount help from former editors; I think such would be readily forthcoming, but worse than useless. After all, their best efforts got us here, and this is not a Good Place. Mathematical competence negatively correlates with clear technical writing skills. Mathematicians (how well I know!) are trained to enumerate every single special case and use language they believe to be absolutely precise and accurate. Technical writers learn that most readers are unable to follow complex logical constructions and that, for a general readership, some quibbles must be glossed over.


 * Steven Hawking wrote (in A Brief History of Time) he was advised that every equation he included in a book intended for a general audience would cut his sales in half; therefore he resolved to present, in no little detail, the state of the art in cosmology (including his own significant contributions) without any equations at all. He reluctantly included Einstein's famous statement of the equivalence of mass and energy, but otherwise got along without.


 * Former editors will make their contributions to the refactored work after it is "live", I have no doubt. There is no point in watching the existing pages, unless you want to see what Someone else is doing to it. I plan to develop the refactoring entirely on a set of my user pages and have you look over it before I cast it loose.


 * Enjoy your vacation -- or, if you should read this on your return, Yay! Now get back to work. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 03:30, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Wikiproject mathematics
Hello Paul,

The informations in the table are correct, thanks for the links. I have a lot of work to do these months (finishing undergraduate studies, finding grants for Ph.D), so I won't be much around (today I went to wiki only to check something, not to contribute). I'll return later :-) Chopinhauer 00:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vacation?
Help! Somebody highjacked Paul's account while he is on vacation, and doing all kinds of things in here! Or is it a clerverly devised bot Paul wrote? :) Or does Paul mean this is what vacation means, away from work, able to concentrate on Wikipedia full time? Oleg Alexandrov 17:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm just nervously doing a little editing while waiting till it's time to go to the airport, and then it's off to Sicily ;-) Paul August's Bot &#9742;

Welcome back! Hope you had a good time, and are now ready to plounge back in the virtual world. :) Oleg Alexandrov 19:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm back, but I'm a bit addled, so "plounge" sounds about right ;-) Paul August &#9742; 22:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Revolver
Hi, thanks for the kind words. I've done some anonymous editing recently, mainly with category theory (I'm the user who added a bunch of stuff about n-categories and created the new category article. I'll probably return. I needed a little breather. Despite my concerns about the project, it's clear it's going to continue on and grow indefinitely, so it's probably not morally tenable to take the position of avoidance.

What sent me over the edge was the accusation of being racist by another user (indirectly...but it was clear I was an intended recipient of the charge). This was a reaction to my comments at African-American, where I pointed out that there was not a real 100% concensus on the meaning of the term, and that in any case, regardless of whether one chooses to use it or not, it's not entirely neutral and its meaning is contested by some people and cannot be completely disentangled from politics. I went on to point out some logical discrepancies with the term (e.g. many African-Americans have family that have lived in America for centuries, yet we don't call whites "European-Americans" or Hispanics "Spanish-Americans", the term is meant to refer to black Americans who descend from slaves, but then "African-American" is a bit of a misnomer, since not all black Americans descended from slaves are considered "African-American" (e.g. those who migrate from Central America are usually identified by their Central American country of origin), not all Africans (not even all black Africans) living in America are descended from slaves, and under this definition, a black African who migrates to America today is not considered "African-American", so clearly the term is confusing at the least. Nevertheless, for pointing out these facts, I was accused of being "racist".

I have had much less problems editing math articles, so I may come back to this first. The problem of anti-elitism has to be addressed...if Wikipedia doesn't turn around and become a bit more elitist in some fashion, it's going to alienate a lot of academics who were trained in some minimum standards for scholarly work. At the moment, it's possible for someone to present sufficient proof of a claim of fact or conclusion, and yet have it disregarded or eliminated for political reasons. Even more troublesome are issues where bias is extremely subtle, say at the article Galileo. There's been an attempt here to at least introduce the fact that Galilieo was a practising astrologer, that this is something that should be examined in relation to his general contributions, and that there is some issue about his opinions and beliefs about astrology. Yet, the article remains written from the POV of 20th-century science, as scientists get queasy at the idea of even connecting Galileo with astrology in any way. Even the point of not even acknowledging the fact that he drew astrological charts, taught astrology to medical students, and was considered by contemporaries as a working astrologist. (These are just facts, although they should be explained with background of the meaning of the word "astrologist".) This stuff is eliminated on the view that "he only did it for money" or "that's not what's important about him" or some other justification. The point is, this aspect of his life and work get systematically shut out, and it's argued that even mentioning the issue is POV.

I notice you work in category theory! I'm working with John Baez at the moment, writing up some of his "tale of n-category" notes into LaTeX and pdf form for better reading. This stuff is really interesting!

Revolver (not logged in)

Simplex algorithm and Downhill simplex method
Thanks for linking these articles; I had never seen the latter. It does raise the question though what to do with the articles. I see two possibilities: either to have two separate pages dedicated to the simplex algorithm in LP and the Nelder-Mead/downhill simplex method, or to merge the articles. Prima facie, I prefer the first option as they are different algorithms. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

By the way, do you know how widespread the term downhill simplex method is? I only knew Nelder-Mead simplex method, but numerical optimization is not quite my field. -- Jitse Niesen 10:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this is not my field at all! I just discovered the "downhill simplex method" article yesterday (it was called just "downhill simplex" at the time). What I "know" about it is just from a little Googleing ;-). But from what I was able to find out "downhill simplex method" seems to be (on the internet at least) the more common name for the "Nelder-Mead simplex method". And, for what it is worth, I would agree that Simplex algorithm and Downhill simplex method should be separate articles.


 * By the way I discovered "downhill simplex" while looking into Pearson distribution (they were created by the same editor), which demonstrates that one of the best ways to get a valid stub expanded is to list it on VFD ;-) Paul August &#9742; 16:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Skeleton
See what you think, and add/change anything that you think might help. Revolver 22:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elagabalus
Sorry, to post here but I wasn't sure you'd see it on the subpage since it seems rather neglected, at least in regards to my previous experience with Marshall, Texas and Great Mosque of Djenné. I've noticed you'd made quite a few changes but, haven't added the dab about the origin of his name in the lead and I was wondering if you had chaged your mind about it. Also, if you feel your points have been addressed I would appreciate your support. (You may move or copy my post to the nomination page.) Thanks. -JCarriker 16:34, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Haham hanuka
Please add your comments and sign your name in one of the sections. Thanks. --brian0918 &#153; 21:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II
Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

footnotes..
Thanks for the reply. I've just put a response/question. I think it's good we're both coming up with the same idea in parallel (and great that more people are working on this). Although in the long term we should try to get fewer types of footnotes and agree everything (so we don't confuse people), in the short term, we need to get experience with the advantages and problems of different systems. I don't think we can come up with a template based footnote system which is perfect (though let's hope), but at least we can make very good prototypes which will let us keep the information for the future and know how a proper system should look when built into mediawiki. Mozzerati 05:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Move of "Mathematical beauty" to "Aesthetics in mathematics"
Hi R.Koot. Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you moved Mathematical beauty to Aesthetics in mathematics. Was there any discussion which preceded this? I can't find any. I don't think I like the name change, especially as the article uses the term "beauty" throughout. Paul August &#9742; 19:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have not discussed it, but I personally prefer the word aesthetics. It also allows categorization under philosophy of mathematics (aesthetics being a branch of philosphy). I do agree that it mismatches with the article, but I'd think it would be better to change the article than the title.

--R.Koot 20:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rudy thanks for your reply. I'm afraid I don't agree with your move. Aesthetics and beauty are not synonyms. Aesthetics might roughly be defined as the theory of beauty. Changing the article to match the title is backwards. The title should match the article, not the other way around. The article is about mathematical beauty, not aesthetics in mathematics. Titling the article "Mathematical beauty" does not prevent it from being classified under "philosophy of mathematics". I'm going to move it back. If you want to try to gain a consensus for moving it to "aesthetics in mathematics" I suggest you make a case on either the article's talk page or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Paul August &#9742; 20:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you for stepping in. I was hoping for someone with a clear, levelheaded mind. When i looked at your homepage i liked what i saw and i would like to nominate you for admin. (This is the first time i'm proposing this to anyone, so i'll have to get acquainted with the process.) Would that be something you might consider? &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 00:17, 2005 May 22 (UTC)


 * Paul, I was thinking of the same thing these days. Looking forward to a positive answer. :) Oleg Alexandrov 00:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence, Sebastian, Oleg. Sure, either of you can nominate me, if you like. It will mean more grunt work, which is good for the soul, I suppose. (Paul goes looking for his bucket and mop …) Paul August &#9742; 03:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, it's out - see Requests_for_adminship/Paul_August. Good luck! Sebastian (talk) 22:22, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy
As per my reply to you on WP:FLC, I'm seriously thinking of starting this next week. Any help you could give would be great. The Cantos list took me months. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:42, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I might try to help out. I've only got a copy of the Inferno. And that's the only part I've read. It is a verse translation and introduction by Allen Mandelbaum (Bantam 1980). Plus I've no expertise at all in this or related fields. But I would suppose most of it will just be digging around. I'll see how it goes. Paul August &#9742; 13:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, I have an ancient 3-volume bilingual pocket edition (Temple Classics published 1900 - 1905 and used by Joyce, Eliot, Yeats, Beckett and Pound) which has a goodish set of notes. With any luck, there'll be Wikipedia articles on a lot of the people, places and mythological figures involved to help with further information. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've made a very small start at User:Filiocht/List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox colors
I noticed you had some objections to the color scheme used for the language infoboxes, and you made a comment about it at WikiProject Languages. Though I certainly encourage discussion about this, I think that your critical comment was somewhat misplaced. I recommend that you bring it up at the talk page instead.

Peter Isotalo 17:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry Peter, I thought I was on the talk page. My mistake, of course my comment was misplaced there, I've removed it. I will bring it up on the talk page. Again sorry. Paul August &#9742; 17:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Request for Venn diagram
Paul, I was wondering if you might have time to do a Venn diagram for the disjoint union of two sets, similiar to your other ones (e.g. Image:Venn A union B.png). I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure what tools you used; it would be better if we had a consistent look. Thanks. -- Fropuff 21:10, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
 * Well I made those Venn diagrams in a kinda klugey way. I don't really have very good drawing tools available. I'd be willing give it a try, but I can't visualize how to represent the (general) disjoint union with a Venn diagram. If you mean the union of say two disjoint sets, then of course two filled in non-intersecting circles would work. But for the general case of the disjoint union of say two possibly non-disjoint sets, then I don't see how to represent that. By the way thanks for your vote in support of my admin nomination. Paul August  &#9742; 00:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking of the disjoint union of two (disjoint) sets represented by two nonintersecting circles labeled A and B. The point would be to visually highlight the difference between a disjoint union and a general union. -- Fropuff 00:33, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, and you're very welcome! Sjakkalle 13:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Same here. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And here too. Grutness...  wha?  01:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. A mastery of maths and an interest in Dante; I can just about manage the poetry and some basic adding and subtracting. Here's to an end of the two cultures approach to life. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Mathematics is just another kind of poetry, The Two Cultures are really one. Paul August &#9742; 13:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the words of Thomas Campion, "Poesy in all kind of speaking is the chiefe beginner, and maintayner of eloquence, not only helping the eare with the acquaintance of sweet numbers, but also raysing the minde to a more high and lofty conceite." Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for catching the little obscenity left by some fool on the iBook page. I'm currently working on it, would of probably missed it otherwise! --Chris Saribay 02:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Paul August &#9742; 03:32, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Mathematicians
Hi Paul. I noticed that you are considering making a list of categories of mathematicians. So I thought I would give you the list I have. It is a couple of months old, and it might not be of use to you, but it might avoid some duplicate work if you plan to do anything about that. See User:Oleg_Alexandrov/Test_page. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 03:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Oleg. I've copied over your file. I'm was just foolin around a bit. Trying to figure out the category scheme for mathematicians. Don't know what if anything will come of it. Paul August &#9742; 04:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Geography of India
I've made sure that the bookmark links match and resorted the references. Has this taken care of your objection? =Nichalp (Talk)= 15:11, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've responded on WP:FAC. Paul August &#9742; 15:49, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Kennan
A references section has been added in addition to the notes. JBurnham 21:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've responded on WP:FAC. Paul August &#9742; 01:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

"rf" template

 * Hi ABCD, I noticed you edited Template:rf to remove the "plainlinks" bit. Thanks, that was some leftover cruft copied from a previous version of the "ref" template, which uses external links. Out of curiosity, how did you come across this template, are you using it? I wasn't aware anyone else was aware of this template but me. Paul August &#9742; 20:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I actually found it by searching for plainlinks, adjusting some to use. – ABCD 17:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. Thanks. Paul August &#9742; 18:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

question about compactifications
# The category HComp of all compact Hausdorff spaces is a full reflective subcategory of Top; the Stone-&#268;ech compactifications serve as the reflections.

I wrote this in the article category of topological spaces. I read it in an essay in Categorical Perspectives, but it seems wrong, shouldn't it be a full reflective subcategory of Tych, all Tychonoff spaces?? Revolver 12:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I think you are correct. A space has a compactification iff it is Tychonoff. Paul August &#9742; 16:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Revolver, I've looked again at the question you asked about whether the "category HComp of all compact Hausdorff spaces is a full reflective subcategory of Top; the Stone-&#268;ech compactifications serve as the reflections." As I said a top space needs to be Tychonoff to have a compactification. Nevertheless, HComp is a full reflective subcategory of Top, the reflections are just not the Stone-&#268;ech compactifications. As you said HComp is a full reflective subcategory of Tych. But Tych is a full reflective subcategory of Top. It follows that HComp is a full reflective subcategory of Top. If X is a top space, then its HComp-reflection, would be the Stone-&#268;ech compactifications of the Tych-reflection of X. I hope this clears things up a bit. Paul August &#9742; 02:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for the clarification! Revolver 13:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi there
Just letting you konw that I've replied to your message on my talk page. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 15:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin help needed
Hi Paul. I want to ask you a favor. Somebody moved gradient to gradient (calculus). This was done without discussion, and without disambiguating the links. I think this is one of those situations in which gradient better stay what it was before; besides the other meaning now put in the gradient disambig page is also mathematical.

So, I wonder if you would agree with me that the thing needs to be moved back, and if yes, if you could do the move (since you have the admin powers). Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 19:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Oleg. I agree that gradient (calculus) should be moved back. But I'm not sure that Gradient qualifies as a speedy delete. I have asked CryptoDerk for advice. Paul August &#9742; 20:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say go ahead and move it back like it was. Throw a line at the top of the gradient article stating that it also is used with respect to hills, etc.  For that person to move the gradient article to gradient (calculus) and then put a disambig page that isn't really a disambig page, all without discussing it, then on top of all that not fix the redirect is really stupid.  CryptoDerk 20:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok I've moved gradient (calculus) back to gradient. Oleg you want to write something on the talk page about the move? Paul August &#9742; 21:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul. Thanks. I wrote something on Talk:gradient and made a gradient (disambiguation) page listing the two meanings. Would you mind putting gradient on your watchlist, in case there is further discussion on the subject? Thanks a lot. Oleg Alexandrov 23:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to help. It's on my watch list. Paul August &#9742; 00:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dante "Fixed"
Sorry for the oversight. Farinata degli Uberti appears in Canto X of the Commedia. Now it should be all right. Thanks for your feedback.
 * Thanks for fixing my stupid Plato/Ari mix up. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, (as long as you find and fix all my stupid mistakes, see Talk:List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy) Paul August &#9742; 15:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul: My line numbers must remain unknown until I find or receive an appropriate edition of the meisterwerk.  I am working from Cary's translation&mdash;coincidentally, this being the only volume of The Harvard Classics not boxed in the store room that holds most of my books. A comparison with an online Italian text suggests that Cary respected the line structure of the original but I cannot be sure and I would prefer to wait until I have a parallel text. And, while I am here, thank you for supporting my RFA&mdash;lax line citation being no impediment, it seems.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 20:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem, Theo. When I get my copy of Purgitorio I will try to add them. And your welcome, I'm sure you'll wear adminship with style ;-) Paul August  &#9742; 21:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

poll
Poll There is a poll in the talk page of Macedonian Slavs article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonian without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story. I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies.

Limbo
Damn! Just an oversight. Back to Limbo I go. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Changes to Islam article
Paul, I think it would be a good idea to check into the talk page of Islam and explain what you're doing. This is one of the most-edited, most vandalized articles in Wikipedia, and people tend to react very strongly to unilateral changes. I don't see anything wrong with anything you've done so far -- in fact, I just put in a whole bunch of my OWN changes, which went a bit further -- but communicating would make good Wiki-political sense. Zora 09:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zora, I've replied on the Islam talk page. Paul August &#9742; 13:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

brilliant prose/temp

 * Hi Dan. Is the page Brilliant prose/temp still needed/useful? Paul August &#9742; June 29, 2005 19:54 (UTC)

not really useful, no. (Unsigned by DanKeshet at 21:32, June 29, 2005 (UTC))

You want to submit it to vfd then? Paul August &#9742; June 29, 2005 22:13 (UTC)