User talk:Paul August/Archive16

Returning vandalism: 69.213.37.242

Hello there. I am contacting you because you were the last administrator to deal with the problematic edits from 69.213.37.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- they have returned (not surprisingly). RFerreira (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

H.D.

Hi Paul, I just nomed Filiocht's article on H.D. at FAR and was hoping you might have time to take a look and comment. A FAR on a '04 promotion was going to happen anyway, so I'm acting preemptivly at a time when I will be able to respond. The page remans fairly heathy since the FAC, it is reasonably well cited, but just needs a little polish here and there. I remember the work you did during the Yeats FAR, and was hoping you might be able to help out here as well, even if only offering suggestions or fighting against the 1 cite per sentence police. Either way, best. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

Fair enough, as long as reasonable comments will at some point again be allowed. Mackan79 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR

I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

I have unblocked 8 IP addresses that you indefinitely blocked. Per WP:Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Additionally, "Vandalism-only account" should never be given as the reason to block an IP address, as IP addresses aren't accounts. Most of the IPs in question had never even been blocked before, so an indefinite block was particularly inappropriate for these cases, especially for run-of-the-mill vandalism. Finally, I find your block of User:71.201.234.208 particularly problematic. This user had his first edit (minor vandalism) in over 8 months, had never been previously blocked or even warned, and no notice of the block was given after your indefinite block of him. I realize these blocks occurred quite a while ago, so I hope that you have refreshed up on the blocking policy since. If not, I strongly encourage you to read up on its changes, as indefinitely blocking IP addresses, while it used to be a somewhat common practice, is virtually nonexistent now. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (slightly edited from original to better convey my intent).

VegaDark, I am not seeing the problem here, and am concerned with the tone that you are using towards Paul August, who has been a member of WP:ARBCOM. Even just looking at the history of 71.201.234.208 (talk · contribs), the IP had been used for nothing but vandalism for years, so there was no reasonable assumption of good faith, so I'm not understanding why there was a need to unblock without consultation. We routinely place longterm blocks on anon accounts, for example see {{schoolblock}}. We also routinely place indefinite blocks on proxy IDs, and these blocks can be done "on sight" with no need for warning. VegaDark, it would have been better in this case, and more collegial, if you asked Paul August for his reasoning, per WP:BLOCK#Unblocking. For example, you could have said, "Hi, I was reviewing indefinite blocks on anon IPs, and I saw that you'd blocked the following IPs indefinitely (list). I found this curious, considering that there were no warnings, and that IPs are not normally blocked for long periods. Could you perhaps help explain? I look forward to learning more about blocking procedures on Wikipedia, thanks." --Elonka 21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review my response on my talk page. VegaDark (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The blocks in question are, well ... questionable. The tone of the message is ... questionable as well. Oh well, live and learn. Paul August ☎ 17:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you took any offense to the tone of my message, as that certainly wasn't intended. Mea culpa if so. VegaDark (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't fret. The patient may have been cured but the bedside manner was lacking. This patient didn't really mind, and took his medicine, however ill-tasting. The next patient might not be so agreeable ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WT:RfAr

Take a look at WP:RfAr if you haven't recently. Are you missing the fun yet? It's not too late for you to come back to us, I don't think. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I came, I saw, I left. Haven't I cautioned you once before about the evils of sarcasm? My sincerest condolences, Paul August ☎ 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

math talk page

Unfortunately, Pohta ce-am pohtit has marked his or her user page as retired. I hope that it was not because we were using that talk page to discuss. It would be very unfortunate if the effect of T.E.'s block was to push some other editor away from wikipedia.

I appreciate your point that we don't want to be in the business of censoring people's talk page posts. I thought about removing the post myself for a moment, but since I was aware that several editors on the math talk page are very reluctant to see anything prematurely removed, I left the comment in place.

My main concern with using the wikiproject talk page is not that I think the people there are likely to be biased, or that the review would be inappropriate. My main concern is that I don't want (non-math) editors to get the idea that the math project is a clique, or that math editors are somehow subject to special standards that can only be enforced by other math editors. I posted a longer note about that for Pohta at [1]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I saw and was disappointed that Pohta ce-am pohtit had done that. And I am worried that I might have contributed to that. I wanted to send an email, but the email feature is not enabled.

I am glad that you understand my concerns. I assure you I understand and share yours. As nearly always there are tradeoffs. We most emphatically do not want to give credence to notions of cliquishness or "special standards", yet the notion that, those who are familiar with an editor and their work may have useful points of view, has merit. We do not want to have inappropriate discussions at the Mathematics project page, yet how should such decisions be made, and by whom? My answer would be by discussion and consensus of the members of that project. Not, say, by fiat from outside. Paul August ☎ 18:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I interrupted the conversation that way. I just felt, and still feel that my participation on this site isn't worth my time anymore. Don't get me wrong, the math community here is one of the nicest around, but the generalized belligerence and outright silliness in the community at large is not something I care to deal with anymore, e.g. this, this, or that. The Pontius Pilate attitude of the ArbCom in cases were content is affected, which are the only ones that matter to me, doesn't inspire much confidence in future of this place. Surely the personality-driven drama will continue to attract people. After all, soap operas are profitable. The policies get applied only when someone with the right buttons or friends gets pissed off, like it happened to Topology Expert or Peter Damian. Also, search Wikipedia Review for John Harnad. Avoiding "cliques" in the math community sounds like a good idea only until you realize what the community at large is all about. The overt contempt for expert contributors, which has become so rampant here, and is never rebuked, reminds of a similar series of events within the Fedora community. Some devs got attacked on the support forum, which is ran without oversight from Red Hat, after said devs asked users to, horrors, submit bug reports. After a couple hundred messages on the devel list, the result was that devs boycotted in mass the user forum, and one even burned out and renounced all his involvement. The bottom line is: I have much more productive uses for my time. Pcap ping 16:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many problems with the project, but I am still a believer ... and as you know, non nobis solum. Paul August ☎ 03:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Paul August's Day!

User:Paul August has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Paul August's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Paul August! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Paul August ☎ 03:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I don't do barnstars or any of that stuff, and I've no idea what's so special about this day. But I do want you to know that for me you're in the absolute top of all the thousands Wikipedians I know. Thank you for everything. And I really do hope that you will continue to contribute, even though Wikipedia does not deserve it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jitse. Not sure it's deserved but it is much appreciated, especially coming from you. And the feeling is mutual ;-) Paul August ☎ 22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me with citations?

I started editing the article dependent and independent variables, which was a real mess, and added some cited content under the math section. However, there is all this content under the statistics section that is uncited, and wanted to know if someone would help me find sources for this information, or challenge and remove it? kilbad (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)