User talk:Paul August/Archive7

Signing
I see that I typed an extra ~ at Talk:Mathematics. Thanks for fixing it for me. JPD (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, we all do it ;-) Paul August &#9742; 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hay
Stop vandalising over on wikiquote. KaIki 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hard to stop when I've never started ;-) You must have me confused with someone else ;-) I've never edited on wikiquote. Paul August &#9742; 03:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, someone must have stole your account, have a look. KaIki 03:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw, Thanks for blocking that account. Makes me think I should open a dummy account on all our "sister" projects. Paul August &#9742; 04:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above messages were made by an impersonator who has created a user name using an uppercase "I" to appear like the lowercase "L" in my username. This vandal seems intent on being a pathetic nuisance here and on other projects, is to some extent associated with the IP 216.164.203.90, and seems to take an infantile delight in devising childish hoaxes: vandalizing pages under various usernames and deceiving people with feigned sincerity about problems being caused under others. ~ Kalki 05:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, more convoluted than I thought ;-) Paul August &#9742; 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked User:KaIki. -lethe talk [ +] 05:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lethe, and thanks for signing for me (twice!) over at User talk:Hillman ;-) Paul August &#9742; 05:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

World Cup
Thanks for the message - It was a thrilling time, something to remember forever. Giano | talk 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit War?
Hi, Paul, unfortunately I missed until just now your comment on my user talk page about the "lame edit war". I am very sorry that apparently you took offense. I guess I failed to explain that (1) my reference to a "lame edit war" was tongue in cheek (and in any case, it takes two to edit war, so I was laughing at myself too) (2) the "edit war" derived from differing assumptions: you believe that the section title describes the first comment in that section, while I felt it should describe the tensor/content of the discussion. In any case, I am not so wedded to the latter belief that I would wish to truly offend you (or anyone) over such a trivial issue, nor do I want to forego your continued commentary in the ongoing discussion there. So, sorry, and please come back whenever you like! Even if you want to express disagreement with something I said, since I probably benefit more from that type of comment, which can help me hone my arguments or clarify my thinking. BTW, if it helps, I reverted the section title and will stop toying with it.---CH 04:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Chris. Thanks for changing the section title back to the way I originally wrote it, I appreciate that very much.


 * Yes I was offended by your claim that I was "edit warring", both in your "lame edit war" comment, and your edit summary of "hope Paul August ready to stop edit warring over question mark in section title". I accept that you are sorry, and given your statement above, I don't think you were trying very seriously to offend, instead I think you were taking something lightly which you should not. Please try to see things from my point of view. I think that edit warring is a very bad thing. It is something I take very seriously. It is something which I don't want to engage in, or be accused of. You write that you were only joking, well it didn't seem like it to me, and I think that it might not have seemed so to other readers of your page. And I would suppose that given your reputation as a serious and reliable editor, that many readers would simply take your word for it, and assume that I had in fact been "edit warring". So joking or not, you have probably done some slight damage to my reputation on Wikipedia.


 * As for the issue that provoked this so-called "edit war", I added the following comment to your page, which I titled Wikipedia is not so bad:


 * "I'm sorry that Chris seems to have lost confidence in the encyclopedia. Chris has made extraordinary contributions to WP and as I said above I would be very disappointed if Chris leaves for good. I would also be disappointed if any of the intelligent voices commiserating here decided to follow.


 * "From where I stand, things are not so bad. In my two years, and 24,000 edits, in the areas I have some familiarity with &mdash; mathematics, classical history, English literature &mdash; WP's content has steadily gotten better. I have also seen many editors come and go. Perhaps that indicates a problem with WP's culture or methods, or perhaps it's just human nature. However, WP will continue to evolve and transform in ways we cannot predict, but it will not die, or at least its content won't. It is already the best online mathematics encyclopedia, and I'm sure the same is true for other areas of WP (e.g. popular culture). It is easy to consult therefore it will be consulted. The more it becomes the source of information, the more important it will be for that information to be correct, and the more motivated people will be to insure that that information is correct.


 * "Anyway, I could "go on" but I won't ;-) I don't wish to presume that people are particularly interested in my views, nor do I expect to change anyone else's views, so I will just wish Chris, and everyone else, the best of luck in whatever they choose to do.


 * You then decided to re-title my comments "Is wikipedia really doomed?". I restored my original title, then you, after toying with a section title containing "It's worse than bad, it is the deadliest enemy of everything I most believe in", changed it to "The title of this section is disputed" (which I found amusing, but provocative). I then told you on your talk page that I though it was "a bit rude" to change the words that I had written, you responded that you were only "joking", but that you preferred "a more neutral section title". I replied that the "title I chose for my comments accurately describes the opinion my comments expressed. I know you disagree but please don't change my words? OK?" And for the second time I restored my original title. After a couple more days of seemingly respectful discussion, you decided to change my title by adding a question mark at the end. I restored my title for the third time, and you again appended a question mark.


 * You have argued that a section title should express "the views of all contributors to that section". I think this is a novel position, and in the many hundreds of discussions I've been involved in, I don't think I've ever seen anybody espouse this view, or change anyone else's title. Nevertheless I tried to accommodate your concern about  the section title not expressing your views, by again restoring my title, and moving the replies to my comments to their own section, titled "Wikipedia is not so bad? (or whatever anybody else wants to call this section)". Which you let stand for awhile before recombining the section under the title "Wikipedia is not so bad?".


 * I had told you that I thought it was rude to change the words that I had written, and asked you not to, yet you continued to insist on re-titling my comments. Simple politeness might have restrained you, but didn't. At this point I decided you were simply trying to poke a finger in my eye, so I decided to wish you "good bye and good luck" and end this silly farce.


 * Let me be clear. I think that repeatedly changing the title of that section was very inappropriate. Regardless of your intention, don't you see that any reader of your page would naturally assume that I had titled my comments with whatever title they saw? I did not title my comments ""Is wikipedia really doomed?", although any number of readers might rightfully suppose that I had. I did not title my comments to include "It's worse than bad, it is the deadliest enemy of everything I most believe in", though some readers might think so. Finally, I did not title my comments with the equivocal "Wikipedia is not so bad?". This last is the worst, since it is the more plausible. It misrepresents my opinions and, in a nicely subtle way, by making them seem more tentative than they are. Who knows which readers were misled?.


 * Yes I was offended by you accusing me of "edit warring", but I was also offended, especially in the face of my asking you not to, by your insistence on misrepresenting my position.


 * As for continuing our discussions, to what purpose? I'm certainly not interested in simply helping you, as you suggest above, "hone [your] arguments" against Wikipedia. But If you want to discuss how Wikipedia might be improved then I might have some interest in that.


 * Paul August &#9742; 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone who arrived in the middle of the "title war" might have been a little puzzled, but to me everyone's position on the issues was always clear enough. In my naivete I assume that anyone with their head on straight loathes edit wars and finds them one of the least attractive (and least helpful) parts of dealing with Wikipedia. Since neither side here hails from the lunatic fringe, I saw Chris' comments as wry humor, and not at all damaging to any reputation.
 * Social/political/editorial interactions at Wikipedia are challenging. We're all volunteers. We enjoy what we do and feel satisfied or we leave. And long-term success requires good relations with a diverse and mysterious group of "peers". In my face-to-face contact I find humor irresistible. It breaks tension, it teaches, it bonds. Wikipedia is full of tension, the stresses of dealing with all the backgrounds, attitudes, intentions, personalities, and behaviors. Making fun of these facts of life is not only inevitable, it is essential. (Finding this link on your user page, Paul, I suspect you agree.) And just as inevitably, sometimes the joke will be misconstrued. In fact, the greater the stress, the greater the likelihood a joke either will contain, or will be seen to contain, a barb. Much classic comedy makes the clown the target, not the audience. The clown slips on the banana peel or gets the pie in the face — and the audience laughs! I think Chris was trying to make fun of himself for what he had been doing.
 * Look at the bigger context. In the middle of a page where Chris is airing his angst over the self-destructive patterns within Wikipedia that are driving him away, you introduce a section title that says it ain't so. I'm sure that expresses your heartfelt opinion. It also represents much of what Chris has found so frustrating. You wanted a title that represented your views; he wanted one that represented his.
 * What really troubles me is the even larger implication. This was an issue of a title on a user talk page, far removed from encyclopedia content. Both parties are genuine in their wish for a better encyclopedia, reasonably mature, and articulate. Yet look at the number of edits and level of emotions engendered! If we extrapolate to articles, it's hard to be optimistic. Not impossible, but hard. Because we have editors who are driven towards disruption or greed or self-importance, who are immature, and who can clearly express neither factual content nor their own thoughts and feelings. Even if Chris is completely wrong and present policies are perfect, the challenge is immense.
 * And now for something completely different. I suggest picking up Monty Python's The Meaning of Life and having a little listen to Eric Idle's Galaxy Song (lyrics available here). Somehow, I find the perspective soothing. :-) --KSmrqT 07:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I near sixty, I truly love the thought that I am only "reasonably mature" ;-) It fits in nicely with another link from my user page But, just so ya know, I reserve the right to be "from the lunatic fringe" (or at least the lunatic part). So the finger Chris was poking in my eye had a "barb" on it? No wonder I found it so annoying.


 * Thanks K (may I call you K?) for trying to give this issue a wider perspective. I really don't think I misconstrued anything Chris wrote, but who knows? I agree that technically at least, for example in his use of the word "lame", Chris was also making fun of himself, but the "fun" was mostly pointed in my direction, don't you think? I did see the humor in "The title of this section is disputed", but no humor in his subtly changing my title by adding the question mark, after I asked him not to. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.


 * As for "the bigger context", yes I can now see how my adding that comment and title on Chris's page would have been "frustrating" for Chris, and for that I'm truly sorry. I didn't intend my remarks to be in any way hurtful, I only wanted to register a mild dissenting opinion. Many times after leaving that comment, I've wished I'd hadn't.


 * With one thing you say at least, I must take exception. You characterized the title dispute as: "You wanted a title that represented your views; he wanted one that represented his". What I wanted was for my title, good, bad or purple, to be unchanged. I expect changes to the words I write in the encyclopedia. I don't expect changes to the words I write on a talk page.


 * Anyway I accept a certain amount of lameyness in my actions, and much of the implied criticism, (gently delivered) in your remarks. Although you cast me as mature, I rather like to think I've progressed directly from childlike to crotchety. Yes Wikipedia presents a difficult challenge on many levels, but, given the industry of so many committed, and talented folks, I remain confident that those challenges can be met.


 * "The Galaxy Song" is one of my favorites ;-)


 * Paul August &#9742; 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day
Jorcoga 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey hey hey. Thanks alot! Feels good to enter the terrible twos, I've always wanted to be an enfant terrible. Paul August &#9742;

Happy First Edit Day

 * Now I have two cakes, one for each year ;-) Paul August &#9742; 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's good, then. :) Michael 04:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll eat one now save the other one for later ;-) Paul August &#9742; 04:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day
(have a third - you can share it with your friends :) ) -Ladybirdintheuk 06:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats on your first edit day! Enjoy your many cakes. Mr. Turcotte  talk  18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks all, going to get fat (er fatter). Paul August &#9742; 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Interactive Brokers
Why did you revert this article? I removed a bunch of comments which amounted to a little more than an unjustified gripe from what appears to be a dissatisfied customer who seems to be unable to read the fine print on the IB website. If you care to make a contribution to the page, please do so, but let the Talk:Interactive Brokers page be your guide.

Wikipedia would be absolute chaos if every dissatisfied customer of every corporate entity was allowed to air all of their gripes at length. The editor was literally arguing about pocket change to most IB users, arguments that really foreshadow the massive cost savings that IB represents for most of its customers compared to other brokerage firms.

64.110.251.69 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was on "vandalism patrol" reviewing hundreds of IP edits. Your edit, via a quick glance, looked like valdalism, since you deleted a large amount of content with no edit summary. If you want to make it again, I won't revert it again. However I would suggest an appropriate edit summary this time. Paul August &#9742; 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Thnkx.

64.110.251.69 03:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First edit day (more!)

 * Have a great day! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish you all the best on the ocasion of your wiki-birthday. Have a nice and creative time. --Bhadani 12:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy first edit day, and more great edits to come! :) - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MD, and thanks also to EvocativeIntrigue, and Bhadani, my day's been very good so far! ;-) Paul August &#9742; 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolute Value
In the article on Absolute Value you recently removed the notations for real and imaginary part I had placed in the section on complex numbers. In your edit summary, you said they were "undefined." I am confused, as these notations used in the articles on real and imaginary parts. On the other hand, I am pleased that when reverting it, you added the condition that x and y must be real numbers, ensuring that they are in fact the real and imaginary parts of z. Although both definitions are eaqually true, I merely believe that when the dfinition explicitly specifies the real and imaginary parts, it is easier for a reader to follow to the next conclusion that ties it the pythagorean theorem and states that it represents the distance from the origin. -- He Who Is[ Talk ] 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi He (may I call you He?), When I wrote that the notation $$ \Re z $$ and was $$ \Im z $$ was "undefined", I meant that it was undefined in that article. But I don't see how using that notation makes things clearer, especially given the attending diagram. Anyway, if you feel strongly about it, you should probably raise that issue on the article's talk page and see what other editors think. Paul August &#9742; 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, Paul, thank you for your flattering words of support on the RFARB workshop page. They are much appreciated. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC).
 * You're very welcome. What no stones thrown my way for referring to Bishzilla, as a damsel in distress? Paul August &#9742; 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a Knight Errant! and any more cracks like that and it won't be Bishonen in distress! Giano | talk 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? Paul August &#9742; 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)





Bishzilla
/Bishzilla will not be drawn, stares unblinkingly at Paul. When he starts to run in circles, squealing with fear, she picks him up, holds him experimentally to her ear, is visibly displeased by the high-pitched little noises. The crowd cover their eyes in horror. Hic caetera desunt. Bishonen | talk 07:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC).
 * Those damn lacunae, just when it was getting interesting too. Paul August &#9742; 21:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop
Thank you for your supportive comments here  They are appreciated. That Fred Bauder thinks I can be banned instead of Eternal Equinox has caused me to have a severe sense of humour failure. In retrospect, of course instead of making light of Eternal Equinox, I should have taken her very seriously - which is what she wanted - but frankly she and her edits on our talk pages were (at best) a joke - so one could either laugh or cry, and crying has never been my style. That Fred Bauder thinks Bishonen should be "cautioned" is, in short, disgusting. She seems to spend hours and hours trying to create harmony on the site, and takes her responsibilities as an admin 100 times more seriously then most of the others. I think the Arb-com now needs a huge kick, and to rid itself of insulting and incompetent buffoons. I expect I shall stick around Wikipedia, but at the moment it is at an all time low. Sorry this is a (sort of) spammed message. Thanks once again, it's nice to feel supported. Giano | talk 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome to, and deserving of, my support. The idea of banning you is absurd and ridiculous, while banning you and not EE, is preposterous (we Yanks have a more colorful expression: "ass backwards"). As for what you should have done, myself I think, the best way to deal with EE is to ignore her. And as for Bish, she deserves to be thanked rather than cautioned. Please hang in there, knowing that many of us hang on every single word you write ;-) Paul August &#9742; 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Perhaps most shocking/concerning of all is your "sense of humuor failure" &mdash; I hope my feeble attempts at humor above, below (and on the worksop page) are not out of place?



So long as it is you in the red tights on the ground it is funny! Come to think of it the one with the dagger standing up looks half-witted - is he a member of some Wikipedia committee? - so I don't want to be him either but it's a nice thought! Giano | talk 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Boxing Day
Ok, folks, tell me what's wrong with boxes and templates. I've begun writing up my idears. Geogre 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nice to meet you
It was great meeting you too at the party. Too bad we didn't have a chance to talk at Wikimania again. (I had connection problems with my Nokia at this mother of all Wiki-meetups, & wasn't until I was at the airport in Chicago that I finaly figured out how I could have made it all work. But then, I was more interested in connecting with human-based protocols there, & not network-based ones.) -- llywrch 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes there was just not enough time to meet and talk to all the people I wanted. Also I couldn't stay away from the main session speakers, all of whom were fantastic, but which meant even less time to talk and discuss with my fellow Wikipedians. Let's keep in touch, and maybe will will have a chance to see each other again at next year's Wikimania. Paul August &#9742; 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

NOR
Would you be willing to comment, here: Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page. Paul August &#9742; 01:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. A lot has already been said on the talk pages and frankly I am not sure what anyone else could add. Things have also quieted down. However, for a short time it looked like two or three recent editors were about to seriously weaken the policy, while claiming to defend it. All I can ask is that you keep it on your watchlist (the policy page). At some point it will be unblocked, and at that time it will be important that experienced knowledgable editors keep an eye on it to protect it against any edits that weaken it. Thanks,Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do. Paul August &#9742; 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikilove
I love you man. Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . 3 06:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow an unknown admirer. You sure you don't have me confused with some other bloke? Have we met in a former life? To what do I owe the honor? Are you looking for a long term commitment or just a one night stand? Paul August &#9742; 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No I love you man... Can i have some money Jamo 06:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Jamo are you panhandling from me or Dfrg.msc? Paul August &#9742; 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Return of WAREL
Hi Paul,

have you noticed the activities of User:WATARU? Seems to be up to his old tricks at perfect number and division ring. --Trovatore 03:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the heads up. Paul August &#9742; 05:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving Wikipedia for a while in protest
Giano, one of our best editors has finally been driven away from Wikipedia, and I've decided to stop editing for a month to protest the poor treatment he has received, and the editorial climate that has allowed this. You could say I am on strike, à la mode (and no that doesn't mean "with ice cream"):


 *  … I simply can't imagine the amount of disrespect, unilateralism, and pettiness that has been par in the last week or two being tolerated. I have no other way, since I believe in achieving consensus, respecting the minority voices, and never trying to force my will on others, to show my displeasure aside from this. It isn't a storming away. It is a strike. Geogre,

Some things that have bothered me:


 * Carnildo's most recent RfA and repromotion against consensus.


 * Tony Sidaway's block of Ghirlandajo for his "defiant response" here.


 * The RFARB against Ghirlandajo.


 * Tony Sidaway's block of Giano for being "hysterical".

ALoan expresses my thoughts well:


 * … marked decrease in tolerance … I am no longer sure I know what consensus is, nor that I can trust the ArbCom and the bureaucrats to do the "right" thing. … it now seems to be a blockable offence to fully and frankly (but civilly) exchange views, or to disagree with certain admins, particularly if that disagreement is expressed in forceful (but civil) terms, and that the rules seem to change when it suits the people making the rules. ,

I encourage everyone to use my page for a constructive conversation concerning the above, and the current state of affairs on our 'pedia. I'll check back in a month. Regards all. Paul August ☎ 17:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have my support
People who don't even know where the articles come from are deciding that their egos' needs are greater than community, consent, consensus, and common sense, are deciding that their private beliefs are superior to the negotiated rules of the site, and are deciding that they know better than all others. For that, they deserve no articles, no input, no debate, no conversation, and no more than the isolation of their self-congratulations and self-adulation. My own strike was a labor action, and I agree with others with the same impulse. Pretty boxes and category tags and stub parades will never take the place of people willing to put their professional-level work on a volunteer project. And, if we were all replaced tomorrow, the replacements, like scabs, would soon join the desertion unless conditions were to change. Geogre 17:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have good points Paul. Carnildo should not have been promoted the way he was (if at all), and Tony is not one of our best admins. I can't comment anything on Giano, as I am unfamiliar with the case.


 * If the current trend continues, I would also consider bailing out. So far I am left with the hope that these are just a few irregularities in an otherwise rather well-behaving community (and I think that irregularities have happened in the past too, and the ArbCom/Jimobo have taken pretty good care of the worst ones). (I hope I am right :) Good luck. Hope you come back. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the view that things are messed up around here. Carnildo's RfA was a travesty, and there is nothing I can say about Tony Sidaway's behavior of late that doesn't infringe WP:NPA. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed on both counts. I'm not sure that there's anything that could be said that wouldn't be seen by the subject as a hysterical public attack.  Uh-oh, BoG, we might both be blocked now.   •Jim 62 sch•  18:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fuck! Hope your back from your strike soon. --Salix alba (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with your break. I can't stop you going, but I think I am staying for the time being, in an effort to try to counterbalance the prevailing idiocy. I think Geogre's WP:IAA must be the way forward. Please come back in a month - enough good people have left already. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your decision Paul, and I also am worried by what's being done to some of our very best editors. Like ALoan and all of us, neither I can stop you from going; but I can pray you to return when the month is past, for the project would be a bleaker place without a man like you.--Aldux 21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you'll return soon, Paul. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so this is where the party is; I feel a little out of place in the illustrious company here, but I feel compelled to post here after the singularly unpleasant experience of reading over the administrators' noticeboard and several other pages just now. Talented, committed writers are the heart of this project, especially now as issues of quality, not quantity, become paramount, and without them we cannot move forward. This whole episode is very discouraging, but hopefully something worthwhile can come out of it. Come back Paul, in a month or sooner; the ideal of a great free encyclopedia still deserves all of our efforts, and this project is too valuable to abandon. --RobthTalk 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in full sympathy with Paul August's action, and yet I know it will pass quite unnoticed by Wikipedia's self-involved "administrators". There needs to be some kind of "sunset law", by which administrators must be "re-certified" at the end of a period: every two years at the most. --Wetman 17:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your break, and I hope we'll see you back around in a few weeks. I can't say that I entirely agree with you - Giano and Ghirlandjo both badly needed to cool it and weren't getting the message, but at the same time, they're both good editors, and I'm fed up with people being needlessly provocative towards generally good people. Rebecca 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Email
FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 18:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics
You will be missed on Mathematics, where I think you have helped to successfully achieve consensus as we improve the article. Stephen B Streater 18:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Email
I've also sent you an Email.--CSTAR 19:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As have I. (Though the Wikipedia e-mail tends to be slow and unreliable at times...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)