Jump to content

User talk:Paul August: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EdwardsBot (talk | contribs)
354,693 edits
Line 549: Line 549:


# RECIPIENTS (CATEGORY) -->
# RECIPIENTS (CATEGORY) -->

== I fixed the problem ==

On the Cyclopes page it was said that Euripides. Said nothing about Asclepius and the Cyclopes being brought back. Well I explained that it is not in the play. It comes from other writers. So I stated that. The information I put in is fact. So dont delete it.

Revision as of 17:26, 30 November 2012

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

Individual archives: Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end

Distracting animation at Euclid algorithm

I was VERY bold (as much to make a point and get some dialog going) and pasted in some still drawings in the lead. I hate to muck with a FA, but I'm sorry, IMHO that animation is worse than useless, it's so distracting I don't want to read the lead, plus it delivers no information (and apparently the information is wrong, or misleading per dialog just above my posting on the talk page. Anyway I saw you felt the same way back in 2009, just wanted to let you know I support your opinion. There's some really interesting math going on once a person realizes how the proof works, but you can't find it from that animation. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It got reverted quickly, which was no surprise. I put it back, but I'm sure it will be gone in an hour. BillWvbailey (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a comment on the talk page. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linear Algebra Article

Hi Paul, you reverted my Linear Algebra edit. I respect your opinion but I spent some time rewording the introduction and I would appreciate some feedback where you thought my editing was not clear. Personally I think the article could use a lot of improvement, and I've made a post on the talk page about this. Loadedsalt (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll respond on the talk page, when I get a chance (I'm traveling all day today). Paul August ☎ 10:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help and the welcome!

Since most of what I do here is copy editing, I'm particularly pleased to be directed to the style manual.

Surely I've mentioned to you that I was surprised to learn that I know two categorical topologists. Unless, of course, another of those cognitive lapses has occurred.

Best, M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Michael Massing (talk • contribs) 03:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Glancing over some recent items here, I found myself asking: If Jesus was Jewish, does it follow that he is a figure in Jewish mythology? ;^) Michael (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing two categorical topologists is surprising, who is the other? You probably told me, but if so I've forgotten. Paul August ☎ 12:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Farris is completing a PhD at Berkeley, if memory serves. He is also a student of Urdu and an aficionado of Bollywood film and the culture(s) related to both. He has a presence amongst my friends at Facebook, where I understand you do not tread, on Live Journal, and perhaps other places. Ah, of course there's his page at Berkeley. I'd forgotten he'd been mayor of Cambridge. ;^) Please excuse me if I've got his field wrong. Remember, my class is the one that never quite made it to calculus. Best, Michael (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He looks a bit different than the Anthony Galluccio (good guy bad driver) I know.

I am astonished at lack of an entry for diseasome.

I am astonished at lack of an entry for diseasome. Best, Michael (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT ;-) Paul August ☎ 22:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Phooey! I thought you might be inspired. Alas, I can only write for money these days. I'm sure someone will fill the gap. Best, Michael (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persephone

I see that this article, which is currently being radically restructured, is on your Watchlist. I shall remove it from mine, as vetting the diffs wears my patience and I trust your judgment that nothing of value is being lost or blurred.--Wetman (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on my watchlist for the same reason that I slow down when passing a car wreck. It used to be a fairly sweet and neo-something kind of article that one might hope to plump up with some scholarship one day. It's now become a pathless wilderness (all trees, no forest). Not to mention the breathless syntax of the first paragraph. And the strange relation of spacing (or the lack thereof) to punctuation. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Syntax man to the rescue! Well, the first paragraph is readable now. The second looks like it could use some pruning, but that's probably a question beyond my expertise. Best to all, Michael (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, learning that we have a Syntax Man has begun my day with a smile. I'm picturing the cloak and mask. And thanks, more readable now. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you all to have a conversation on my page while I was away ...
Wetman, unfortunately that would be a misplaced "trust". Paul August ☎ 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry about all the empty pizza boxes around the place. And the broken lamp. You really should get a lock for that liquor cabinet. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC
Oh well, mei domus est tui domus. Paul August ☎ 22:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the cat's away, the mice will play. Am I to assume your tongue is planted firmly in cheek in not writing "domus mea est domus tua"? Michael (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul's form is the genitive pronoun; both versions are technically correct, but your personal adjectives are less likely in a sentence with the main verb est, where I'd probably use a so-called 'dative of possession' and no verb for aphoristic effect: domus mihi, domus tibi. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(On second thought I like pork better than squab.) I chose Latin (albeit pidgin) as a nod to Cynwolfe, perhaps I should have instead written ymay ousehay isway ouryay ousehay. Paul August ☎ 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Technically correct, I meant to say. Correct, they were both correct. Didn't have my contacts in this morning, geez, ended up sounding like a scold instead of playing along. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So my Latin wasn't so squab like after all? And meanwhile poor Persephone ... and now Lamia as well ... Paul August ☎ 19:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm just an eejit. Or rather, it's as if some mutant neural pathway has formed in my brain, and I'm constantly inserting negatives where they don't go. (Some might consider this righteous retribution for my overly critical nature.) This is especially embarrassing in emails to my dearest family members and friends, where I'm likely to say things like "of course I don't love you." Cynwolfe (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
;-) Paul August ☎ 22:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, Cynwolfe! Yes, neither Paul's version nor mine sounded especially idiomatic; thanks for giving the thing the proper swing. Alas, I never developed a sense of style, ending my studies stumbling through Gaius Julius Junior's impedimenta in Gaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Michael Massing (talk • contribs) 07:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much ended my studies with Maria habuit parvum agnum. Paul August ☎ 13:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The" versus "the Beatles"

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I pick your brain?

Hello Paul and sorry for bothering you, but would you please chip in here, if you can? It's a point of procedure regarding Implementation notes on Noleander's arbcom case. Again, sorry for the intrusion and thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Hydaspes

Hi. Please see Cleanup necessary?. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double votes

Right; I started, but had to leave before I could finish. Cool Hand Luke 09:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now I see. Paul August ☎ 10:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First choice, second choice

This whole thing always drives me insane. Could you please check my implementation notes for the AE case, especially for R1 to R3.1? Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid

If you have the time, could you keep a watchful eye on Euclid? I just deleted renewed speculation, inserted as fact, that Euclid was of Egyptian origin. I've had very little time for Wikipedia in recent months. This is the first time I looked in on this article since December, so today's was just a lucky catch. Thank you.—Finell 23:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in template

Hello.

Can you do something about the bug described at Template talk:SmithDGRA? Michael Hardy (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. I'll take a look when I get a chance. Paul August ☎ 18:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael, I've (finally) taken a look at the comment you left on Template talk:SmithDGRA, and replied there. Paul August ☎ 12:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article on totally bounded spaces

Would you be able to provide a reference or proof of your claim that "a metric space is separable if and only if it is homeomorphic to a totally bounded metric space?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.28.144 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See: Willard, Stephen (2004). General Topology. Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-43479-6., p. 182. Paul August ☎ 16:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul

Hi Paul
I saw that you deleted my edits to the 'derivative' page, saying that 'these edits are incorrect'. I'm confused, what parts were incorrect? Evan2718281828 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, this is how to write a message.

So I made edits to the intro to the derivatives page and tried to make it much clearer for people just learning without removing any info. But you deleted the edits and said that they were incorrect, so I wanted to know why; I of course didn't see any flaws in my edits, and I certainly need to know if I have the concept of a derivative all wrong! haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan2718281828 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Evan. This is not Paul; but I was going to write you a note about your edits and I saw that you had posted here asking for clarification.
You wrote that "a derivative can be thought of as the rate of change in slope." This is not true. If you use the function to draw a graph, then the derivative is the closest thing there is to the slope of the graph at a point. The rate of change of the slope would be the second derivative. Furthermore, the interpretation as a slope is only one of many. If you interpret f as a function that takes time as an input and gives position as an output, then the derivative represents velocity (the idea of "slope of position with respect to time" doesn't make sense).
Two other things. First, we don't usually use asterisks for footnotes here on Wikipedia. The software has a built-in mechanism using <ref> tags. You can look at WP:NOTES if you're interested. Second, you referred to the increment h as a "random variable". But random variable has a jargon meaning in probability, so that's not a good word for h.
I hope you're not too disappointed about having your first edits reverted. I appreciate your eagerness to participate. It's always good to have new editors around! You might want to join the mathematics Wikiproject. We're based at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Most project discussion and organization happens at that page's talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I hope you'll consider joining! Ozob (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ozob for your reply to Evan. Paul August ☎ 12:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Evan. I reverted your edits for all of the reasons Ozob gives above. A good idea is to discuss proposed changes first on the given article's talk page, for the Derivative article that, would be at Talk:Derivative. Best wishes, Paul August ☎ 12:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics on Arbcom candidates

Hi Paul - as you may be aware, there is currently an RFC related to the next Arbitration Committee election. A suggestion has been raised with respect to statistical information about arbitrators seeking re-election here. As I know you have been quite industrious in collecting this sort of information, perhaps you could comment? Risker (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see. Paul August ☎ 01:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otium

How do I go about getting Otium reassessed to possible B-Class and getting a higher assessment of "importance"?--Doug Coldwell talk 15:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Doug, but I don't participate in, or know much about article assessment, nor do I happen to know much about the article's topic either, so I'm afraid I am not going to be much help here. But goof luck and keep up the good work. Paul August ☎ 17:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mithraic mysteries

Yes it was inadvertent. since I was manually reverting anyway I wouldn't have got a prompt.©Geni 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moirai

Hi Paul, if it hasn't been done by the time you see this, could you delete Moirai so that the poorly named Moirae can be moved per the discussion at that page's Talk and at the Classics Project Talk? Thank you — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 19:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the move. Paul August ☎ 21:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 21:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Die and Dice

Regarding your edit to Multiverse. The template has succeeded in discouraging people from changing "die" to "dice". In the context of this article, the die is analogous to a particle in quantum mechanics, it's important that it's a singular die, not dice plural. Would you please self-revert? Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Machine Elf. Yes, of course, "it's important that it is a singular die, not dice". And of course my edit maintains that distinction, in the natural way, i.e. writing "die", rather than the very confusing "{{dice}}", when the singular is wanted. In addition using "{{dice}}" generates a link, which can result in violations of WP:overlink. A third problem I have with this template is that it will, it seems to me, encourage the very ignorance that is the root of the problem. Also what, if any, is the evidence that using this template "has succeeded"? Paul August ☎ 14:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, in parts of Britain, it's becoming more acceptable… I don't see how it could possibly “encourage the very ignorance that is the root of the problem”, even if ignorance were at the root. As you're concerned, anyone who's unfamiliar with the singular term would obviously benefit from the link (to which no one, in fact, objects). I suppose for those who would try to change it, any confusion upon seeing it already says "dice" on the edit page, is exactly what deters them.
In this case, I don't have a problem with exploiting an ignorance of templates. I've explained why it's being used, because in your edit summary, you said you didn't understand… I'm not going to argue pedantries with you, I find your assumptions less compelling than the hassle of regularly reverting it back to "die". Check the article history if you don't believe me—it completely stopped when I switched to the template.—Machine Elf 1735 17:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We hold fast to the misusage in the US, as explained by Ambrose Bierce:
DIE, n. The singular of "dice." We seldom hear the word, because there is a prohibitory proverb, "Never say die."
Bierce goes on. I shall not. Cheers, Michael (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. Nice to have you suddenly resurface on my page. Hope all is well with you. Paul August ☎ 19:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to say so! All is, as always, a tall order; well is reasonably accurate. Engaging more in questions of substance here, as I figure out the protocol. How's by you? (Respond where you like, I'm pretty visible.) Best, Michael (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Law of large numbers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Die (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this now thanks. Paul August ☎ 15:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template "{{dice}}"

You Said ... Hi Melcombe. I see that you have reverted two of my edits, eliminating the use of the template "{{dice}}". I'd like to understand your reasoning for these reverts. I have several concerns with regard to the use of this template: It is confusing to find "{{dice}}" instead of the natural "die" when the singular is wanted, it generates a link, which can result in violations of WP:OVERLINK, it will encourage, it seems to me, the very ignorance that is the root of the problem, and finally I don't see how it, in any way, avoids the problem of editors changing "die" to "dice" inappropriately. Regards, Paul August ☎ 15:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I didn't create the template ... I use it becaause it is there ... someone created it because it is/would be useful. Secondly, experience has shown that (across a number of articles in which it is used)it has reduced the number of times the grammar gets switched inappropriately, presumably because people either read the pop-up that appears on the article (which doesn't need a click-through) or else, when editing, spot the braces and realise that the spelling is intentional as it is not an ordinary wikilink. Melcombe (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently, it's was removed from all of them nonetheless.—Machine Elf 1735 20:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project Greece and Rome

I don't run that project, I just help with upkeep on things that don't seem to get taken care of. I have been doing so for several years. I never said I run it, just help run it. To keep it fresh and make sure there are new collaborations every now and then and check on other housekeeping things. But I have no problem with working with people that WANT to work together, but Cynwolfe has never shown that they can really do that to me. That is my opinion based on every encounter with the member starting with this[1] and then continuing on the Greek Love article where policy and guidelines have just been thrown out the door as well as several of us that are major contributors. Cynwolfe is not innocent in all this. They have ownership issues on both the Greek love article and The Project Greece and Rome talk page. Talking down and name calling are not just aimed at me. The member looking to find a way to raise Otium to a B rating got slammed and then when I came to the page to discuss it, it became an intellectual contest of text with one person claiming that the article could never be raised to a higher rating until experts on that subject contributed and then some even attacked that member's intelligence. And this all starts with Cynwolfe in my opinion. The Project talk page has always had a lot of people of varying knowledge but this person creates an uncomfortable atmosphere.

Do I owe them an apology? Quite possibly, but I didn't say anything to Cynwolfe that they didn't already say to me. Do I deserve an apology? Calling someone a bully is so easy, but their actions show that more than mine, especially over the course of months where they have created an atmosphere where some don't want to post on the pages they are on out of sheer aggravation.

You have kept your participation in this very simple. That has far more weight to me than those that ramble on about how great Cynwolfe is. But if anyone does something Cynwolfe doesn't like they become horrible and the latest discussion is just one example. So I'll say this, if what Cynwolfe said to me was fine and does not deserve an apology to me or the outrageous attack I took when I was notifying them of changes to an article and then continued to push me off that page....do you think my saying I am sorry is going to change much? I have no problem doing it. Apologies are important....I just wonder who really deserves one here. I need to mean it when I say it and getting some small amount from that member first would go a long way towards my meaning it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You write that "quite possibly" you owe Cynwolfe an apology, that you "didn't say anything to Cynwolfe that they didn't already say to [you]", that in regards to being a bully that "their actions show that more than [yours]", all of which indicate to me that you are not proud of your behavor here. Regardless of how you think Cynwolfe has behaved, if you feel that you have behaved badly, an apology is called for. Paul August ☎ 22:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Called for?" No. Appropriate, yes. Apologies are never called for or required, but in a civil world, regardless of the wrongs we feel we are subjected to....if one feels less than proud of behavior it is the usual step...one I do feel strongly about. It would be nice to see Cynwolfe take a different tact, but alas there is nothing to show that will be the outcome here. I will think about how to approach this further. I don't see pressure to make me apologize coming from you. What I see is your pointing out exactly why an apology would be something I would want to do. Having said that, it is more than likely I will extend it.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Paul August,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Sincerely,


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2012

Hi Paul. I wonder if you are still maintaining the statistics of arbitration proceedings, or if the data for 2012 is simply forthcoming. If you are still maintaining the page, then thank you for your hard work, and please don't consider this an impatient demand for new data. Regards, AGK [•] 22:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other activities have kept me from this task lately. The 2011 data is not quite complete, and though I still would like to finish that, I suspect I will not be maintaining any of this going forward. Others of course are welcome to continue to collect this data, but I detect little interest in this. Regards, Paul August ☎ 12:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apollodorus

Hi Paul, I just finished cleaning up all the 500+ mythology articles that linked to Apollodorus of Athens (who was simply Apollodorus) instead of Bibliotheca (Pseudo-Apollodorus). I've moved the Athenian to Apollodorus of Athens and I'm pretty sure that Apollodorus should just be the dab. When you get a chance, could you clear out Apollodorus and move Apollodorus (disambiguation) there? I think this is uncontroversial and fits the dab page policy, but could be wrong. Thanks a bunch, — cardiff | chestnut — 17:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good of you to fix all these incorrect links. But don't understand why you changed "Apollodorus" to be a redirect to "Apollodorus (disambiguation)" (from being a redirect to "Apollodorus of Athens" here. Presumably those articles are still looking for the Athenian, e.g. Anaximander, Epicurus, Hecate etc? Paul August ☎ 19:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of them definitely are, but an equal number are looking to other Apollodoruses on the dab page or to more minor figures not listed there. Some I couldn't even figure out, hence the redirect to the dab. I should have when I realized what the situation was also gone through and direct linked the certainly intended Apollodoruses of Athenses to his article; I'll do this presently. My main rationale for sending Apollodorus to Apollodorus (disambiguation) was to prevent further introductions of refs like Apollodorus 3.18.2, which is how the Bibliotheca is cited in many sources. Judging from the number of links that are certainly meant to go to Apollodorus of Athens vs. the total number of links that could go to any Apollodorus (incl. Ps.-Apld.), it seems that the 2nd c. Athenian isn't where the simple headword belongs. Let me know what you think. — cardiff | chestnut — 19:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ultimately "Apollodorus" ought to be the name of the dab page. Once we eliminate all the links to "Apollodorus", I can do the move. Paul August ☎ 20:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Do you mean all the links to "Apollodorus" the 2nd c. Athenian, or all the links to random Apollodoroi who are currently simply linked "Apollodorus"? I don't know that I'll be able to dab all of these. One more question: do links in Talk and User spaces need to be changed? Thanks — cardiff | chestnut — 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved "Apollodorus (disambiguation))" to "Apollodorus". I saw that you disambiguated several of the links to "Apollodorus", and I've now fixed (I hope) several myself. I need now (I see) look at links to Apollodorus (disambiguation). Paul August ☎ 15:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well all the links now look more or less ok to me. Paul August ☎ 15:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. The Unknown God one and the Leleges–Carians Apld.'s have stymied me. There's a chance that the Unknown God ref might belong to Apld. of Athens' Περὶ θεῶν, but this might be through Philodemus, and I don't have Obbink's editon of On Piety and my TLG disk doesn't either. Good catch on Acestorides: I should have realized from the order of the list (Conon, Apollodorus ...) that it had to be the Bibliotheca. I've cleared out the rest of the links to "Apollodorus (disambiguation)", a few of which I actually introduced. Thanks again for talking care of this. As I was going through the erroneous Bibliotheca > Apld. of Athens links I noticed how often WP had made the Bibliotheca a work of the 2nd c. BC, with some even calling it the Chronicle, so the move was really needed just to slow down WP's returning public knowledge of the Bibl.'s authorship to the state it was in during the the Byzantine period. — cardiff | chestnut — 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I spent a bit of time looking at the "Unknown God" mention to no avail. I also spent some time at "Leleges" as you may have noticed. I was able to add some linked cites for the bit about the Lelex connection, but I could find no mention in the Library for the supposed "Cretan legend". Anyway, the situation as you found it was an obvious mess, very much needing cleanup — all your hard work is very much appreciated. By the way, this ancient confusion can still be found I think in modern works. For example the Britannica article on "Apollodorus of Athens" which even though it says the Bibliotheca is not by him, still has him writing on "philology, geography, and mythology"). Paul August ☎ 15:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think both Apollodorus of Athens and the Bibliotheca need a good bulking up with recent scholarship to help make plain just what the situation is in the generally fuzzy topics of Hellenistic scholarship and Greek Mythography. Maybe someday ... — cardiff | chestnut — 16:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed ... someday. Paul August ☎ 16:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more part of the mess: if you have an opinion on the matter, you might want to chime in at User Talk:Phlyaristis#Apld. and, where the discussion should probably take place, Talk:Bibliotheca (Pseudo-Apollodorus)#Citing (and linking) the Bibliotheca: my cleaning up of the mess created a little spill of its own. — cardiff | chestnut — 16:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied there. Paul August ☎ 16:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Value

Your recent edits of the primary definition[s] of the absolute value function are problematic for three reasons. The first of which is that you are replacing a well source definition with one that does not have a source, the second is your failure to compromise by including the both definitions as they are equally signficant, and the third is that you seem to expect others to make discuss changes to the real argument definitions before they are changed, when you are not doing so yourself. I am going to revert your good faith edits for now, on the assumption that you will either provide a source for your definition, or start a talk page on the subject. Regards. KlappCK (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KlappCK. Ok, I've restored the original definition with a source. I'd be happy discuss other changes you think need making. Paul August ☎ 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way: as the | two most prolific editors of this page, I believe it is against the spirit of Wikipedia for either of us take ownership of the page. The absolute value function's relationship to the sign function is significant and is not expressley stated elsewhere on the page. As both definitions have reputable sources, it is my belief as an inclusionist that we include both definitions. I am putting the definition back in again, as both definitions have there merits (the former for its simplicity and the latter for its ability to readily demonstrate that . This is the most pragmatic solution that I can percieve to be a compromise. If you are still flustered by the inclusion of this definition as one of two equally relavent real domain representations, then I believe your are right that we need to start a discussion on the talk page.KlappCK (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside here, I should clarify that . — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlappCK (talk • contribs) 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with having the equation
in the article somewhere (the proper place would be in the section "Relationship to other functions" ) but I don't think it should be given as a definition. As I asked earlier can you point to any reliable source which uses this as the definition? Weisstein doesn't really count here as he is self published and idiosyncratic. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you can also find a nearly equivalent form (and several others) at Wolfram Alpha (as good a source as any, if you ask me). I wish there were a section of the absolute value in the handbook.KlappCK (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the equations there are ever used as definitions. So I'm going to move that equation as I indicated above. Paul August ☎ 20:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Aleus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Paul August ☎ 12:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Paul August. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

 New England Wikimedia General Meeting

The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future!
Potential topics:
Sunday, April 22
1:30 PM – 4:30 PM
Conference Room C06, Johnson Building,
Boston Public Library—Central Library
700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

Message delivered by Dominic at 09:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.[reply]

Why the revert?

You reverted my request in Administrator's Noticeboard. Care to explain why you did so, and furthermore failed to notify me that you had done so? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was unintentional. Don't know how that happened. I suppose it must have been an inadvertant "click" somehow. Paul August ☎ 17:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might have been the case, esp. since you didn't notify me or edit summarize your reasoning for doing so. No worries. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life's a bowl of …

Pomegranates for Paulus Augustus

A bowl of very ancient pomegranates for you, for cracking down over at Persephone. That article makes me throw my hands in the air. Or wash them.

Anyhoo, welcome back! Cynwolfe (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

;-) Paul August ☎ 23:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA collaboration

I proposed this over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics, but there doesn't seem to be much of a response, so, as I noticed that as you and I are the top 2 contributors to the article Area, would you like to collaborate with myself (and possibly others) in getting this vital article up to GA at least? Thank you for your time.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gilderien. Thanks for asking me to collaborate. I may look at the article now and again, but I'm afraid I don't have much time at the moment to devote to Wikipedia. And if you check, you'll notice that my contributions to Area have been inconsequential. All the best, Paul August ☎ 17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, real life should always come first :) I will carry on working on it, and if you ever change your mind, just give me a shout.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll

There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random bits

I didn't know you're a mathematician... o.o - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 11:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What gave me away? Paul August ☎ 11:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erdos number. Randomly wandered over there. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperides

Just to let you know, I deleted the section that an IP had deleted, a deletion which you reverted. I was going to make a dummy edit when I first saw the IP's edit noting that it was right, but was too lazy, so you were right to revert it since there was no edit summary. Other than the gods in that section, the names aren't Greek, just some fantasy fiction approximation of what Greek names would sound like. If the story has some basis in one of the lesser mythographers, I'll add an appropriate summary, but given the nature of the text as it stood I think it's best not to let it stand, since if it's some post-Jacobian Western European fantasy, which it kinduv smelled like, that much coverage would be undue anyway.  davidiad.: 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles RfC

Hello this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!
Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields.
Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either.
00:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Arbcom

Hi. Any chance you might be considering it again? : ) - jc37 17:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Paul August ☎ 20:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Happy editing : ) - jc37 20:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaia (mythology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aether (mythology), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gyges and Cyclopes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. Paul August ☎ 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax

Hi, just so you know for the future, it is a standard on Wikipedia that headings are written in sentence case, not title case, except where they reference a work, institution, etc. whose name would be written in title case. See WP:MSH. — Smjg (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm aware of that. Don't know what happened at Ajax. I could have sworn that my edit there was to undo an IP who changed "fiction" to "Fiction". But that's not what the history shows, so this must be an early sign of dementia. Paul August ☎ 22:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

I fixed the problem

On the Cyclopes page it was said that Euripides. Said nothing about Asclepius and the Cyclopes being brought back. Well I explained that it is not in the play. It comes from other writers. So I stated that. The information I put in is fact. So dont delete it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_August&oldid=525728223"