User talk:Paul August/Archive5

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!—Theo (Talk) 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Buon Anno!

Happy New Year! :-) Aldux 14:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the message, happy New Year to you too! Giano | talk 13:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

The footnotes you've added to Gödel's incompleteness theorem don't seem to work; I click on the links and nothing happens. Is this related to the bug in the template we labored over last fall? --Trovatore 22:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions for television shows (again)

I saw that you were active in the first vote for naming conventions of television program(mes). Well it has raised it's ugly head again and I would appreciate any comments you have to make about my new proposal for naming television shows. Please leave comments here. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Globe joys, interview

There are some Globe reporters writing about Wikipedia in a Boston context, and I thought they might like to interview you. I talked to them today and they're pretty cool. If you're up for it, leave me a note or email me (meta.sj gmail). Sj

signing for rick

thanks Rick Norwood 22:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Paul August ☎ 22:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For your support and congratulations! (Now, if only Filiocht would return from his vacation... besides, he's just about out of tea. Don't suppose you've heard from him?) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You're most welcome for both. Yes if only — and all the milks gone sour! No I've not heard from him. Hopefully he's on an extended, and much deserved, holiday. Paul August ☎ 22:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hi Paul. While new sections have to go at the bottom of the page, new comments pertaining to an old section may be posted in an older section. At least, that is the traditional practice in Wiki, whether or not it is official. On the other hand, one can choose to archive. Alexander 007 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex ;-) I suppose you are referring to the note: "New comments at bottom, please" at the top of Talk:Alexander the Great. Yes you are correct about the proper placement of new comments. I didn't write that note but simply made it bold to indicate it was a note. I think it was trying to express what you were saying above, but ambiguously. Feel free to change it. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Erdős number

I realize that you don't yet appear to have participated in the User Categorisation project, but you might be interested in the Erdős number sub-project, or specifically this page. SyntaxPC 08:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Porus, Pururushottama, Battle of the Hydaspes River

Hi Paul, happy to see you back :-) I wanted to know if you could help me with a problem I have with an anonymous Indian editor (his IP are many, User:192.94.94.105, User:192.94.94.106, User:192.91.75.29, User:192.91.75.30, but I'm pretty sure he's the same guy), regarding the battle of the Hydaspes River, which he insists in imposing a version that Alexander lost, a thing that no scholar accepts, and has expanded this not only to Battle of the Hydaspes River, but also to Porus, Purushottama and Alexander the Great (in the latter case he seems to have given up). What I find particularly frustrating is that they're exactly the same arguments taken from exactly the same webpage, Alexander the Ordinary. This has already been twice discussed at Alexander the Great and rejected by all non-indian editors, as can be seen at Talk:Alexander the Great#Conquest of India? and Talk:Alexander the Great#Disputed Indian History. An Indian editor, User:Idleguy, also tried to block this anon. editor, but he too had little luck. I've tried speaking with him at Talk:Porus, but it has been of absolutely no use. What should I do? And sorry for nagging you again; you must be feeling I'm becoming, as they say where I live, una tassa, i.e. "a tax" ;-) Aldux 14:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aldux. Sorry you are having problems. I've looked into the situation a little, and I agree that those IP's are all apparently being used by a single editor, pushing a particular POV. I'm not sure I have any magic solutions for you. I think the best thing to do is to try to involve as many other editors as you can in the dispute (see: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment). For example you might consider asking Wetman's help. I've added those pages to my watchlist, and I will monitor the situation, and I will see what other assistance I can provide. In the mean time continue to do what you are doing, and try not to loose your patience and continue to be as polite and considerate as possible. (P.S. No you are not "a tax", I'd rather think of it as performing my duty as your patronus ;-) Paul August ☎ 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus impossible with Aldux

He just does not accept any argument which is contrary to his. Book reference is there but that is "unscholarly" according to Aldux. These nationalists are hard to deal with.

Suggest a way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.75.30 (talk • contribs) 15:32, January 27, 2006 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:192.91.75.30. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I will not be able to create an account. I have been operating like this for many years. Hard to explain the reason. But this should not deter us from reaching a logical conclusion. Ciao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.94.106 (talk • contribs) 16:44, January 27, 2006 (UTC)

Well would you like to try to explain the reason? I can't think of any disadvantage myself. I be interested to know any. In any case could you sign your posts with four tildes: "~~~~". Paul August ☎ 16:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also be interested why the person 192.94.94.106 contributing from ti.com (Texas Instruments I guess) can't make an account. You get more anonymity with an account, not less, if that's the concern. Just pick a silly name, and will make life easier for you, and most importantly, for everybody else. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Let us avoid the account issue Paul. Tell me why is a written source not acceptable. Note Arrian wrote based on Ptolemy who was not present at this battle. Plutarch similarly wrote the account more then hundred years later. Oliver Stone made the movie Alexander after much research and if you watch the film he almost shows Alexander lost to Porus. There is no funny business of "treat me like a king" from Porus. Few more things to look at, after Jhelum alexander walked down Indus, alone, and fought the malli tribe who pierced his armor and shot an arrow through his ribs and he almost died. If Porus was his vassal he would have accompanied Alexander. But Porus did not accompany him. It is also mentioned Alexander gave a whole bunch of gold to Porus, now why would a victor give his wealth to a looser? Alexander's army refused to go any further. Note the terrain to get to Jhelum is a lot tougher then ambulating in the ganges plain of India. So his army had already done the hardwork. They did not turn back because of 8 years of war or whatever. They turned back because they saw so many of there fellow soldiers die. Lastly, Greeks want to portray Porus as king of India. India at that time was ruled by Nanda dynasty and Porus was a vassal of Magadha. So one cannot say 'Alexander's conquest of India'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.94.105 (talk • contribs) 07:40, January 29, 2006 (UTC)

No, let us not avoid the issue of the account. You show up sporadically, each time with a different IP address, and don't even know how to sign your posts. You should make an account, and be a well-behaved Wikipedia citizen. Then it will be easier for us to talk to you, and your comments would get more weight as well. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact I am engaging in a debate with Paul is a sign of my being a good wiki citizen. Debate the issue at hand where Aldux only wants a certain POV, glorifying Alexander, mentioned here. Everything else is being swept away... 192.94.94.105 07:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

192.9x.xx.xxx (or how shall I adress you?), thanks for being willing to discuss this, (and thanks for signing). I think, however we should move the discussion to a more appropriate talk page. So I am going to copy your comment about Alexander above to Talk:Alexander the Great, and continue the discussion there. Paul August ☎ 14:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

My very own barnstar

My very own barnstar

My wife, bless her soul, presented me with my very own barnstar. On a recent trip to Kansas, she found it at an antique store, and bought it for me. Isn't she sweet? Paul August ☎ 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Awww. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bridesmaid Awaits Award for Attalus I waiting to appear on the main page while all his sister FA's get married and make their debut.

Re: Crap

Thank you Paul, I did indeed miswrite. The error has been corrected. ENCEPHALON 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to be of service ;-) Paul August ☎ 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Psellus

Hi, thanks for cleaning up Michael Psellus as I requested. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome, thank you for solving the mystery. Paul August ☎ 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anselm Page

Paul, I noticed that you have edited the Anselm page in the past. There is now a heated dispute and the makings of an edit war. Would appreciate a scholar's input and comments on the discussion page of that article.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 12:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnote/MathML bug

Try Infinity with MathML turned on. Sometimes I see the problem, sometimes not (just now I didn't, but it hasn't been edited since I did). --Trovatore 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have turned MathML on since since your comment at Hilbert's problems. I saw the problem a few times, intermittently with the test page. I've created a new template "ent2", which inserts a </div> at the beginning of the template expansion. I have not seen the problem with that template, but since the problem is intermittent, that is no guarantee that the problem is "fixed". I've edited Infinity to use that template. Please let me know if you re-experience the problem with that page. Paul August ☎ 21:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Einstein POV-pusher

Hi there. I've decided that this has all gone far enough and it is pretty clear that the POV-pusher on the Einstein/Poincaré/Hilbert pages really does have nothing to contribute and is doing nothing but wasting a lot of time. I'm compiling evidence for a RFC and probably eventually an ArbCom case, with the specific assertions that the user has 1. been engaged in rampant POV-pushing and intellectual dishonesty, and 2. been badgering and insulting other Wikipedia editors. Unfortunately compiling the evidence is very time consuming, given that it is spread out over many pages, different accounts and IP addresses, and involves sorting through dozens of diffs. If you want to take a look at it, and contribute anything you are able to, the temp page I am doing this on is User:Fastfission/RFC. Thanks for your time! --Fastfission 19:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you kindly read before reverting

Re Sexual intercourse. I find it rather unhelpful of you to revert my edits without comment. It's against policy and not helpful in this case, where I made sensible changes that should at least be discussed. My most elaborate compliments, 87.122.1.157 22:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit by mistake. I'm sorry for the error. I was on "vandalism patrol" where I was using an admin tool (which unfortunately automatically supplies the edit summary). When on patrol, I review hundreds of edits for vandalism, making dozens of reversions, at the rate of a few seconds per review, usually without error, but alas mistakes are sometimes made. Again I'm sorry for my error. I'm glad you caught it. Paul August ☎ 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your apologies, and keep the good work. 87.122.15.55 06:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Paul August ☎ 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Undelete John Fine

This is my request that you undelete the article John Fine. Both John Fines are important in our community, and the younger John Fine is far from nonsense; he is a national competitor in Policy Debate and has had an enormous effect on the entire 'sport', if you will, especially in the Western States. I think it would be very offensive to the Western States if you simply removed the entry for a person who is truly a master at what he does and a wonderful example in his community, as well as a young person who has truly already had a notable impacet on the sport he loves. Matveiko 04:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matveiko, I've undeleted the article, and for now I have removed the speedy delete tag, since I am no longer convinced that it qualifies as a speedy delete. Be advised that the editor that nominated this for speedy deletion may very well disagree and renominate it for speedy deletion, or send it to WP:AfD. Paul August ☎ 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Another admin FCYTravis has now deleted the article. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy semi-deletion

Re: your comments to a certain page, please don't make me go to Requests for semi-arbitration. At least, not in both universes, anyway. :-) Wikipedian in hiding 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality in ancient Greece

I saw that Wikipedia had an overlapping article Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece that was actually a sub-article, covering one section of the main article. In cases like this I edit down a précis of the more narrowly defined article and insert that into the broader one, with a Main article at... heading. The subsection can be as brief as you like, as long as it reflects the major points made in the full-size version. I figure you see the point in these moves. --Wetman 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do. And I completely agree with that kind of article architecture. In this case though It looked like your abridgment had inadvertently added some text that you didn't intend. I wasn't trying to make the subsection any more brief, just eliminate any accidental additions, and I wanted to make sure that I had done so correctly. Did you check my edit? Paul August ☎ 05:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes. Quite right. I hadn't meant to drag all that in. --Wetman 05:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. Paul August ☎ 05:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Your apology

(This is a reply to your apology left on my Talk page)

Thanks, Paul. I didn't take any of it personally. I was just sick of trying to navigate through the various policies, procedures, etc. and then not finding any kind of consistent approach to implementing them. My opinion is that it makes it very difficult for users like me to figure out how or where to contribute. These inconsistencies also prompted some pretty hostile discussions between myself and some other users. All of this combined to increase my stress and basically discourage me from continuing to contribute. However, I'm going to give it another go and see if I can disregard various users from disregarding the rules, policies and procedures that are implemented here. I still think that this project is a noble undertaking that I have chosen to monitor and participate in. James084 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tanks

Thanks for the look at Henry Carey (writer). I know that whoever tagged it meant well, and I responded by biting, but, dang it all, this place is going -project crazy, and folks slap tags as if that were an improvement. Slapping a tag is inferior to a note on a talk page. It is when that fails that tags should be used, but, there I was, editing that article about once a week, and suddenly I find that it needs to be cleaned up to meet a higher standard? That was a bit off-putting, as that article is now the best source on the web for information on Carey. It has more information in it than the DNB, and it's less POV than the DNB. It does a better job of integrating the music and satire careers than other sources (although I wish a musical person would research him; I suppose I'll look in the Grove Dictionary some time). It's not that it's an acceptable article being told to improve to a "higher standard," but rather that I thought it was a very good article already above the standards of this place, and, without a word of what the person thought needed to be done, a tag appears, and it's supposed to stay there for 30 days and only be removed by volunteers at this project? It's breath taking. Geogre 08:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Now the person the article was "assigned to" has done some copy editing. Most of the changes are good (one I think takes emphasis away and fails to carry the same force), but still not a word on the article's talk page. Fear? Hubris? Ignorance of practice? I don't mind the improvements, but being treated as an IP editor is a bit aggravating. Geogre 10:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ton't mention it. Yes some folks just go around tagging things. From each according to his means, I guess. Writing an explanation on the talk page would require well, writing, not everyone's strong suit. It goes without saying that there are nearly a million other articles which could stand being cleaned up before any of "yours". But I guess any loving attention is a good thing. If we want to effect the culture of that project we should go over there and talk to them. I'm not sure I have the gumption at the moment however. I've also made a few tweaks to the last editor's copyediting. Please feel free to stomp on my toes with hob-nailed boots. I will defer to your better writing skills always. Paul August ☎ 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You've been doing fantastic stuff, Paul. I could feel abashed at how many mistakes I had left in, but I still take solace that there are no better sources. If I could find an image of a loup on Commons, I'd give you the Hawk Eye Editor Award. Fantastic catches. (See, on my talk page: I'm going to do a conference paper on Carey, I think. I've got to do a paper on someone, and I think he's a good candidate, given how few people know him.) Geogre 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Il n'ya pas de quoi. I'm good at detail work, by disposition as well as training (mathematics and programming), however as a consequence I sometimes miss the bigger picture. Paul August ☎ 19:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul, thanks for your further edits of the Henry Carey (writer), mine were done in a rush and your corrections are all improvements. As you suggested 'generations' was an accidental typo for 'generation'. Kcordina 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome, I'm glad you think they are improvements. Paul August ☎ 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Winterberg

Thanks for taking a look at that. There are some additions made by you-know-who that I still need to review and probably revert (he is fond of inserting things into the article which are completely uncited and unverifiable, such as that Winterberg was involved in only "purely scientific" aspects of the LaRouche group, whatever that is supposed to mean) but I haven't had time to go over much. The work on the notes looks good; again, some of them got messed up because of you-know-who making modifications to the article (they were originally in the correct order). --Fastfission 21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm glad you like my additions. I'm planning to work on this article a bit more. This article helps to fill in background for the Einstein priority issues, and will help some in trying to evaluate the competing claims. Also I think our friend's contributions to this article have been more constructive, albeit with an agenda. Paul August ☎ 21:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or

Bat Ye'or is not a reliable historical source when it comes to saying Maimonides had converted. Every historical document that talks about this says that he and his family fled Cordoba. The wikipedia entry for him says this. Keeping information in an entry that is incorrect because there is a source for it is not reason enough to keep it if the source is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdinowitz (talk • contribs) 21:39, February 22, 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mdinowtz, I think you have me mixed up with someone else. Looking at your recent contributions and based on your message above It looks like you are talking about the article Dhimmi. My only edit to that article was to revert a bit of vandalism. I think you may have meant your message for Pecher. Regards Paul August ☎ 22:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I saw what looked like my entry with your edit but I was mistaken. Sorry about that. On the other hand, this whole thing has forced me to learn how to post references and edits. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdinowitz (talk • contribs) .

No problem. Paul August ☎ 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Three Little Pigs

I think you may owe 209.161.238.90 (talk · contribs) a quick apology - the material he was trying to delete appears to be silly nonsense. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right. A bit of carelessness on my part. I've left her/him a note. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 03:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Anybody could have made that mistake. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

note

It appears that 68.73.124.46 (talk · contribs) left this message on your user page in error.

==My name is John==
Does this work? I'm still experimenting, I'm quite new. Someone help me, what am I editting??

— Mar. 1, '06 [05:26] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Pages for deletion

There are two pages up for deletion, Cretan/Spartan connection and Revolution within the form. I ask for a vote of Transwiki. Thanks.WHEELER 22:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicolas Courtois

Hi Paul. I've nominated this article for deletion. I see from its history that you may have reasons to believe he is notable. I invite you to join the discussion. --C S (Talk) 10:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chan! Paul August ☎ 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

ABSL

Hi Nicholas. I just noticed that you speedy deleted ABSL. May I ask what were your reasons for the deletion? It is definitly not a hoax (as one editor thought) I think an articleI'm don't agree that this should have been deleted. Would you object if I undeleted it. If you still think it should be deleted then it can be sent to AfD. What do you think? Paul August ☎ 21:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've undeleted it, I just don't see how it could be so uncited on the 'net. Could you try and develop it further, to explain what it is, and why readers should care? It just seems like something for Wiktionary, in it's current state. -- user:zanimum

Thanks Nicholas. I'll see what I can come up with. Paul August ☎ 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne and Folsing quotes

Hi Paul, Licorne has quoted Folsing (on the Hilbert page) for a claim that in 1915 Einstein went to Hilbert for help because Einstein couldn't derive the correct field equations. This appears on the Einstein-Action page as well (unsourced). Other sources, including Folsing himself, say that Hilbert invivted Einstein to Gottingin in June-July 1915 for one week of lectures on general relativity. It was Hilbert who went to Einstein, looking for a physics problem to solve. Licorne probably doesn't have a copy of Folsing (he couldn't tell the page number where Folsing says Einstein went to Hilbert for help). Can you sort it out, with your trusty copy of Folsing? Also, good to know is whether Folsing is aware of the printer's proofs of Hilbert's paper. He seems to make no reference to them and therefore makes some mistakes, as far as I can see. Thanks. E4mmacro 07:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I'll see what I can find. Paul August ☎ 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as to why Einstein went to Göttingen (in June 1915), here is what Folsing has to say (p. 364):

… Einstein accepted an invitation to go to Göttingen for a week, where, at the request of David Hilbert and Felix Klein, he presented his generalized relativity theory in six two-hour lectures. Hilbert—who, after Poincaré's death, was unquestionably the worlds foremost mathematician—had since the winter semester of 1914–1915 devoted a seminar to the fundamentals of physics and in this context had dealt in particular with the theories of Gustav Mie and Albert Einstein.

Later (p. 369) Folsing writes about Einstein's view in the Spring and Summer of 1915, that he had already successfully completed his theory of general relativity. Folsing quotes Einstein, in May:

…general theory of relativity … To have now really reached that objective is the greatest satisfaction of my life …

Folsing continues:

… his obvious confidence was based on his presentation of the theory in the comprehensive article published six months earlier in the Proceedings of the Academy: The formal Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity. All the evidence of the next few months serves to show that, throughout the summer, he believed that in that article he had accomplished something like a definitive version of the theory. By the end of June, the mathematicians at Göttingen had "understood every detail"; and two weeks later he already had "the intention to write a special little book as an introduction to the relativity theory, its treatment aiming from the outset at a general theory of relativity" At the end of August, he was rather proud that he had "completely convinced"⁴ Felix Klein and David Hilbert in Göttingen.

He goes on to say that Einstein's confidence was further bolstered by experimental confirmation for the bending of light by gravity, quoting Einstein as saying in May that his theory had been "brilliantly confirmed"⁷. Finally Folsing writes that:

It was probably after his return from his trip to Switzerland [September] that Einstein had to get used to the idea that his formulas for gravitation could not be correct. At the beginning of October he realized "that my previous argument was deceptive."⁸

So, it seems to me, that Folsings view is inconsistent with the idea that Einstein when to Göttingen for help.

As regards to the newly discovered printer's proofs, I find nothing to suggest that Folsing was aware of them. Hope this all helps.

Paul August ☎ 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

Oi vey. A mess. Good idea, your relabeling/moving. I was trying to be even handed, but with competing versions of "even handed" going... I think that I've quoted wp:own about four times in this arbitration. - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It did seem like things were getting a bit out of hand. I'm glad you approve. Paul August ☎ 23:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Shout at the Devil

Well, the previous edit was either vandalism or, more likely I think, a crazy person. A lot of that stuff is simply not there. We can localize the "Milton was of Satan's party" line of thought in Byron. It was in the air, to some degree, as Blake's Marriage of Heaven and Hell show, but arguing that there is an allegorical valorization of Satan as Cromwell is just plain looney. The comparison to Achilles is telling, because Achilles is a rotten hero for modern readers precisely because he is motivated by selfishness and pride -- values that are sins in Christianity. Milton was never of Satan's party, in my opinion, and no Christian, much less Puritanical Puritan, could see pride as a point of admiration. That takes a later, less religious group.

Now me, I'd stay away from the "who's heroic" altogether. I figure the Satan problem is the problem of narrative and not authorial intent or reception. I think there are structural reasons why he has to be the most interesting character, and they don't reflect Milton's intent or the reader's desires. Instead, I see Paradise Lost as an interesting and monumental effort at redefining the Epic. Milton was all over the classical descriptions of the epic. He knew his Aristotle and Horace well, and he knew there were rules, and he was trying to work out an entirely new epic that could not and should not be read with pagan/Classical expectations.

To me, the only folks who get intoxicated by the Satan-is-a-hero stuff are either too emotionally invested or are using Milton to make their own political statements. (You can guess which camp I put the Fish called Stanley in.) Geogre 23:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

129.78.64.106

Hey, please don't block 129.78.64.106 - that's the proxy for the University of Sydney. I've unblocked it; if you have any concerns, please feel free to chat to me on my talk page. enochlau (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Encephalon nom

Well, we've done it. Have a look at User:Knowledge Seeker/Encephalon nomination. We're just waiting for acceptance now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but the rules for RFA were changed some time back; while one may create a nomination, it shouldn't be added to WP:RFA until the candidate accepts the nomination. In any case, Encephalon has previously declined nominations made without asking him first, and I preferred to give him time to answer the questions before posting the nomination on WP:RFA. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh I see. Yes I was not quite up on current procedure. Well done! Paul August ☎ 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I saw your messages to these two chaps and just want to let you know that it was actually my fault, really. I had been planning to do it Sunday afternoon, but ended up only being able to log on past midnight, IIRC. Thank you so much for all the support, it's really very kind of you. :-) —Encephalon 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. My support seems well deserved. Paul August ☎ 00:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Transition monoids, model of computation?

Good call putting categories into the transition monoid entry. I'm not too sure about Category:Computational models, though; I'm not sure that viewing finite-state machines algebraically in this way is enough of a difference to qualify as a different model of computation. (Now, recognizability by a monoid is a separate issue, but I don't think anyone's written anything about that yet.) BenetD 19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it. I don't really know much about this area. I was just trying to find some appropritate categories. Paul August ☎ 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Compass and straightedge

Please refer to Talk:Compass and straightedge before proceeding; then return here. Thank you.

Please see that I noted the problem on talk before starting work; there were no objections. When I finished the small edits, you wrote: ... if we were to replace "ruler" by "straightedge", the article should be rewritten to reflect that change... I absolutely agree with you and that is the next thing on my To Do list. Will you permit me to finish?

I'm upset that a mathematician would resort to the low argument of "common usage". Up to a point I endorse such a style; I'd rather see the article on Joseph Stalin so titled, rather than Ioseb Jugashvili or even worse, the Cyrillic. But this is mathematics, the study of what is true -- certainly not what is the common notion. If "straightedge" were a bizarre, technical term then I might acquiesce to "ruler"; but it is not. Indeed the correct term's meaning is self-evident, even to the layman.

Have a try at rewriting Ruler so as to make "compass and ruler" seem like the more logical choice. Let me see that text.

Please, let us not descend to "common usage" in our editing of mathematics articles. That road leads to Golden box, Pyramid, and Ball.

Please restore the article to the correct title. Please do not wait for some majority opinion to form. I would not respect any number of "votes" setting π = 3. John Reid 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

John, thanks for replying. Sorry I didn't see and reply to your post "Ruler" or "Straightedge" sooner. I did reply as soon as I saw it. I think we should discuss this further (on that pages talk page) and with more people before we do anything more. By the way I'm advocating a discussion not a vote. I'm not sure why or how you want me to rewrite ruler, it seems fine the way it is written. As regards the "common usage" issue. My only comment was that in my experience (I may be wrong) these constructions are most commonly, and by tradition called "ruler and compass constructions". If so, then according to Wikipedia policy that name should be used. In addition since technically "ruler" does not necessarily mean "calibrated ruler", the title "ruler and compass" is not technically incorrect. Nevertheless, since, as you correctly pointed out, "ruler" is usually thought of as being "calibrated", the term "ruler and compass", although (perhaps) the traditional name for such constructions and technically correct, may be misleading, and hence we may want to rename the article. I want to see what other editors think before deciding on a course of action.

On a personal note, I'm concerned that I have caused you to become upset. In any case I have thrown a monkey wrench into much of your work. For all this I am sorry. And as I said on your talk page I am happy to redo or undo any edits which become necessary once this issue is settled. I apologize for any trouble this is causing you. Paul August ☎ 00:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm upset, but it's not personal. This is an encyclopedia of fact, not a compendium of commonly-held notions or rumors. I'd hate to think I'd invested my efforts in some sort of hopped-up opinion forum; and it dismays me to think of any other editor inclining to that. I don't think of you as ill-intentioned or thoughtless; merely misguided. You never took a look at the hodgepodge of terms applied to this subject before I began cleanup.

You have your reasons and I have mine. I hope I can persuade you. I cannot think it is necessary to redo or undo any of the good work I've done thus far; all that remains is to rewrite the key article itself. On reflection, perhaps I ought to have done that first. I'd like to believe it's an error I can repair.

I'm sorry, but common usage is a knife that cuts both ways, as I noted on the relevant talk page. If you insist on common usage for "ruler and compass" then you must admit the common interpretation of "ruler"; if you insist on a strict definition of "ruler" then you open the door to the unambiguous "compass and straightedge", since you have already turned your back on common usage. It is precisely in order to avoid this sort of metaphysical thicket that I favor "straightedge".

I don't want you to rewrite Ruler; my point is in the nature of reductio ad absurdum: the article cannot be written coherently so as to support "ruler" as unmarked in the context of compass and straightedge. The passage wherin this very subject is treated makes it extremely clear why "ruler" is the incorrect choice. I believe if you deliberately attempt to reword this article so as to endorse "ruler and compass" and compare versions you will be led out of your error.

It is my position that I did not require preformed consensus in order to do the work I've done ("BB"). I saw a problem and fixed it. If all 125 related articles and 16 redirects had consistently chosen "ruler and compass" I might well have been wise to seek to overturn existing consensus; but that did not exist; nobody could agree on anything.

Having been bold and done work, I think it is you who should return the page to Compass and straightedge, permit me to finish rewriting the text, and then, if you desire, you may seek consensus for your choice. I am bringing order out of chaos; you will be exchanging one order for another.

Should you prevail, please do not omit to rewrite all 125 articles to conform. John Reid 02:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are upset. You think I am misguided, well I undoubtly am in many things ;-) I may be wrong in thinking that "ruler and compass" is the more common name for these constructions. But so far you have not presented any evidence to persuade me that I am. I think your position is that these constructions should not be called "ruler and compass" constructions because of the ambiguity in the word "ruler". That is a valid point, and I might agree with you about that. But that is beside the point. The real question is not what should they be called, but rather what are they called. Now as a matter of fact there are called both, I just happen to believe, consistent with my forty years, studying, teaching, discussing and doing mathematics, that "ruler and compass" is the more common and traditional term. But I could be wrong about that. What would help in trying to decide this question are some references (one easy one is PlanetMath which uses "ruler"). Also I would like to know what are the experiences of our other mathematics editors.

The title for the article makes the statement that, in the opinion of this encyclopedia, that title is the most common one for the subject of the article (by the way whatever prhase we decide upon, both should be mentioned in the article) However, the situation with respect to other articles is a bit different. I think, depending on the context. either phrase (or both, or others) might be appropriate.

As for the issue of consensus, no you weren't required to seek a consensus, before editing as you did, but it might have been better if you had. And one could argue that there already was a consensus. The article was created in July 2002, has been edited dozens of times by many respected editors, linked to by dozens more editors in dozens more articles, and read by who knows how many, all without apparent objection. Moving any article, especially a well established one, can be quite controversial. It is generally thought to be a good idea to seek consensus before making such a change.

Anyway, I don't intend to take any more action, until there is general agreement on the talk page about what to do about this.

Paul August ☎ 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If consensus existed, then it would have spread over all the related articles and made some sort of consistency felt there. It did not. The article in question was linked to in over a hundred articles -- and no single link or text held anything like a clear majority. Each editor, it appears, had his own justification for his own interpretation. I can't agree (in most cases) that there is any local justification for one alternate title that overrides project-wide style. Let the article on Carl Friedrich Gauss use the same text as that on Transcendental number.

At this moment -- unless someone's been going round undoing my work -- all linking articles link directly to Compass and straightedge and every article's mention of the subject outside of a link reflects the same usage. (This with a few exceptions, each with some distinct justification.)

I have not, should not, and shall not, attempt to show which term is more common. It's irrelevant. Seven monkeys swinging from a tree all shouting "coconut" does not make it so. There is no limit to the number of things which are commonly called by an incorrect, ambiguous, misleading name.

It's clear that no argument will prevail with you that rests on truth and accuracy; you are only interested in majority opinion. I can't argue with you on your ground and you won't listen to me on mine. That's fine; I don't insist that anyone agree with me.

If you truly feel that your choice of title is correct, then don't stop at undoing only a portion of my work; undo it all. If you think it's better to have 16 different variations of the title, then simply revert my edits as you go. If you think your choice should prevail uniformly, then make that change; now that I've done the hard work, you can probably do it with a bot. But please don't stop in the middle, throwing a monkey wrench into the gears just before I complete the job.

I'll ask again: Please return the article to what is now its canonical title, as shown in every other article in the project. Seek consensus for some other change, if you like. Or be bold and fix all these pages to suit yourself. John Reid 22:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

John, with due respect, you are being unnecessarily harsh in your comments. As you said, each of us have their own views on how the article should be called. The matter is being discussed, and I suggest you wait a bit, and don't take things as close to heart. As far as "fixing" those pages to point to whatever article name is decided, it can be easily done with a bot, so please don't stress so much on that in your arguments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

John, the proposed move has been listed on WP:RM. So it would violate policy for me to move the page now. If a consensus emerges, then I would be willing to move the page, and fix any links or redirects. There is an active discussion ongoing at Talk:Ruler and compass constructions, I urge you to join the discussion there.

I'm more than happy to listen to any arguments you care to make. I think I have, and I think I've understood them. Basically what you are saying is that "ruler and compass constructions" is a misnomer. And I might be willing to agree with you on that (although even there the situation is mirky, since these constructions have been around longer than English, it is entirely possible that it has only become a misnomer recently with the changing meaning of the word "ruler"). However, what I don't agree with is that, Its being a misnomer means that Wikipedia should not use it for the title. Wikipedia is not in the business of correcting misnomers. This is not just my opinion this conforms to standard Wikipedia practices and policies. Wikipedia titles should be whatever they are most commonly called, even if the most common name is a misnomer. See for example WP:UE. (Thus our article about racial prejudice against Jews is titled Anti-Semitism, even though "anti-Semitism" is a misnomer since not all Semites are racially Jewish.)

Understand that I'm only talking about titles of articles here. Elsewhere, there is more latitude. For example one may choose to describe things rather than name them. So for example if I wanted to describe these constructions I might write "constructions using only a straightedge and compass" for clarity, while if I wanted to refer to them by name I might write "traditionally called ruler and compass constructions", perhaps noting what is meant by "ruler". Or if I was writing for mathematicians I would just write "ruler and compass constructions".

Paul August ☎ 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. (having just read Oleg's comment) I agree, no need to "stress" ;-) it will all workout for the best eventually. Paul August ☎ 00:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oleg, I apologize to you and to Paul if either of you feel I've been uncivil. I haven't expended needless words in empty courtesy but be assured I have the utmost respect for Paul's professional abilities. If you can tell me in exactly what way I have been "harsh", I will endeavor to correct that.

The only reason it now is bot-easy to correct a hundred articles from the correct form to some "common usage" is that I already went through by hand and fixed them. This was grueling, boring, tedious work; it was very difficult for me to stay on task, since so many of the articles I touched have more pressing and glaring needs. I don't like to think it was effort wasted.

Paul, I agree that the time is past to settle the matter "out of court". Now it's going to go through the RM wrangle and that's that. I don't really feel up to a vehement defense of my position in any forum and whatever happens, it's just one thing. I expect you to support your position vigorously and I hope you will never read into my considered defense any faint resemblance to a personal comment. I simply feel that this is a point of fact, not of opinion. John Reid 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to grind away at my preference but to ensure there's no misunderstanding of my intent in writing Inconsistency makes us look like fools and amateurs. I feel this is very true but it's not intended as a personal assault nor do I believe we are fools; at least some of us are not amateurs. It's a matter of perception.

I don't find good justification for a wide range of terms used to describe a subject, regardless of context. I might go so far as to endorse perhaps 3 such: one to be used in articles directly connected to the subject, one for those in the same general field, and one for those whose connection to the subject is tenuous, exceptional, trivial, or accidental. Even so I would seek a term that had the broadest possible applicability and seek to extend it rather than alter it to fit.

If you browse my contribs on this subject you'll see that I have managed to rewrite nearly every related article, near and far, to use the preferred text. In many cases I retained the word "construction". Although I feel it's superfluous to a reader with background, one without may be brought to some sort of comfort or recognition with the addition. Note however that I eliminated all hyphenated phrases; I can think of no context that demands them. I also eliminated the plural of "construction" in every case; construction is an art and a theory which does not admit of count. Yes, it can also be taken as a thing accomplished, which may reasonably be pluralized; but this is unnecessary when referring to the subject as a whole -- it's only appropriate when speaking of this particular construction or that, then another, then both together. Nor is there any justification for inversion of word order -- none at all. Thus I reduced 16 alternate terms to 2; one an extension of the other.

In a very few circumstances I let stand the additional needless word "unmarked"; this was usually in dab pages or articles so distantly related that I felt the emphasis was justified; or when the necessary condition was itself under discussion. And in one case -- Ruler -- I allowed the link to stand as ruler and compass construction as the very passage in that article is an indictment of that usage.

Obviously, that's how I think it should be done in order to present an image of competency, reliability, and professionalism. Self-consistency is a superficial but surprisingly reliable way to determine the authority and accuracy of a source; it never fails to amaze me how many cranks and fools cannot keep their terms straight. I hope we may distinguish ourselves. John Reid 03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you know what Emerson said about consistency …  ;-)

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. (emphasis mine) John Reid 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Paul August ☎ 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulleting/non-bulleting footnotes

Hi Paul. In the Dionysus article, you removed the bullets in front of the footnotes. I thought they made it look more readable and was following prior practice from other articles. The Wikipedia footnotes guidelines seem to show a numeric indentation. Cf. Wikipedia:Footnotes. I think they might be more legible with bullets. Any ideas ? Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bob. Styles vary. But I've seen lot's and lot's of notes sections in WP (and elsewhere) and I don't ever recall seeing bulleted notes before. (By the way I think the most common practice is to title the section "Notes" rather than "Footnotes") Can you point to some examples? The bullets seem unnecessary to me since each note is already "set off" by the note numeral. Anyway If you really think it looks better go ahead and add them back ;-)

Hi Paul. Thanks for your kind reply. Yes, styles vary. Hmm. No problem with "Notes" v. "Footnotes". I'll have to come up with some older pages which I haven't edited with bulleted footnotes if I can as examples. I guess since the ref/note mechanism and the current encouraged mechanism (ref, /ref, reference/) by Wikipedia all seem to indent since they use numbered lists rather than the rf/ent mechanism. So that's where I think I remember seeing indentation first: the ref/note mechanism where people used numbered lists -- which indent. Don't know ultimately which is more visually useful. Thanks for your thoughts. Time for reflection. ;) BTW, is the new non-template mechanism as documented on Wikipedia:Footnotes considered a standard for Wikipedia use? Or just a recommendation? As you correctly say, styles vary widely within Wikipedia articles. Thanks again and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I haven't been following the discussions and developments all that much. I need to reread WP:CITE. and WP:FN, But I would say that there are definitely no firm standards yet. Many folks prefer in-line Harvard style citations over footnotes used just for citations. As for footnoting styles, the non-template system is gaining steam. But my personal preference is for rf/ent since I think that system looks "best" (I really hate those up arrow thingies ;-) and (aside from having to manually number) is more convenient. But each to his own ;-) Paul August ☎ 20:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. I agree with what you've said. I do also find the up arrow thingees a bit odd. I have a hard time stuffing a long footnote in the article proper as well. It seems to disturb the raw editing process, although it comes out properly in the seen final article. Indeed, thanks for your thoughts as ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)