User talk:Paul August

I'm sorry, you have reached an imaginary number. If you require a real number please rotate your telephone by ± 90° and try again.

Archives
Complete archive Individual archives: Jul–Dec 2004 Jan–Jun 2005 Jul–Sep 2005 Oct–Dec 2005 Jan–Mar 2006 Apr–Jun 2006 Jul–Sep 2006 Oct–Dec 2006 Jan–Mar 2007 Apr–Jun 2007 July–Sep 2007 Oct–Dec 2007 Jan–Mar 2008 Apr–Jun 2008 Jul–Sep 2008

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)