Hi Paul. This edit removed several statements, including my own. I assume it was unintentional, but I wasn't sure the best way to go about fixing it, so thought I'd ask you. Happy New Year, anyhow. :) MastCell Talk 04:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Paul, you may be interested in the following discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Computational complexity theory as part of "mathematics". Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, forgot about that. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at
Hi,
Thanks for your note. I've written an explanation of what I reverted and why on the talk page for the article. By all means, let's reach consensus! Roger Pearse ( talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
You recently blocked Qwertyisbest for page-move vandalism. I just noticed a user named Qwertyismykeyboard editing an article Qwertyisbest was interested in, and the assumption of sockpuppetry doesn't seem too far-fetched. Qwertyismykeyboard's edit wasn't vandalism, though. What should be done? Block evasion is prohibited, of course, but calling for checkuser seems like overkill right now. Should I just wait and watch? Yours, Huon ( talk) 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Back in 2005 you discussed this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. The article has since been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 01:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not want to get into a fight over the AD. CE issue: I left a note on Calcearius talk page, will you look at it and see if any thing else needs to added so that this issue does not become contentious. Thanks. Hardyplants ( talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you have a Ph.D.
This is a heated discussion in the Talk:Barack Obama page.
There are some people who insists that President Obama is a professor. There are some that want to diminish his achievements. I take the neutral ground.
I think there is confusion between Professor and professor. The difference escapes many people in the general public. Obama was a part time faculty member and was given the title of Lecturer then Senior Lecturer. Senior Lecturer is very honorable but it's not the same as Professor and Chair.
What do you think? Does the average person know the difference between Professor, the title and professor, the generic profession? I think not. To prevent confusion and misunderstanding and not to diminish the man nor inflate his resume, I think that a simple mention that he was on the part time faculty at the University of Chicago Law School where he was a Lecturer and later Senior Lecturer is very honest, accurate, and neutral.
Please help! JB50000 ( talk) 08:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steven. Thanks for your two years + of service to the AC. It was a pleasure serving (briefly) with you. Paul August ☎ 03:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the note and your work. on those articles. Both are neccesary and Your re-instatements are much appreciated. Regards,
Haploidavey (
talk) 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Any possibility of reinstating this? It is a perfectly good article although it needs Wikifying and a bit more research on how to link it to other articles. Thanks for your help with the other articles 86.184.133.167 ( talk) 20:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You missed the last edit war over whether Euclid had "oriental origins".— Finell 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Usually if you have to manually edit a page to fix the formatting so that your script will accept it, you're doing something very wrong. :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
and what about in a different place? ( recursion) franklin 03:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if you could be so kind as to do the honours again. This refers [1]. Could I possibly see the version of Illuminationism that was deleted by Fram? And why did 'Beeblebrox' revert to an inconsistent set of birth dates for Duns Scotus in the same article? Shouldn't rule C5 be treated with discretion and care? Are any of the people here actually qualified to look after an encyclopedia? Regards John Watkins LLD ( talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paul. I notice you're active in maintaining the article on the Roman emperor Nero. I think there may be vandalism in footnote 5 ("Nero was not a fiddle player..."), but I've looked at some past revisions and it's been in place for awhile, so I'm not sure. Would you mind checking it out and addressing it if appropriate? Thanks, Candent shlimazel ( talk) 03:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This appears to have 6, but from a reading of the top of the page, with 0-1 abstentions, 7 are needed to pass? Cirt ( talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a serious problem. Cirt ( talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, thank you very much Paul August for your very polite and helpful explanations during all this. Cirt ( talk) 21:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
So ... if I am understanding this correctly, an "abstain" ( or a recuse ) reduces the number of votes needed for a particular decision to pass, so an "abstain" is sort of like a "weak support"? Cirt ( talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Paul August, thanks again very very much for your candor and especially for being so polite and kind with me in your responses regarding this. Yours, Cirt ( talk) 02:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking has now been open for 32 days; with only four comments in the past 10 days. RFCBot ran off with the RfC tag two days ago; it's easily time for it to be closed. Due to the nature of the issue, no administrator is truly "uninvolved", but one who is especially well-respected by the community, such as yourself; are the closest thing we've got. Fancy making a close? For reference, I'm contacting former arbitrators who hold admin tools but no other bits. Cheers, Happy‑ melon 19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The template is deprecated, so I thought that they should be changed. I think the reason is because we should not be talking about an article in a hatnote. Explanations prepared if required. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 02:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
After some years of gestation, this article is now largely finished. I am thinking of taking it to FA but would like some thoughts from people first, as I have heard such bad things about this process. It should go there one day, the history of logic is one of the top 50 articles that should be in an encyclopedia. I welcome any thoughts. HistorianofLogic ( talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paul. Thanks for changing the title of my request for clarification. In fact you changed it from a correct title to an incorrect title. You are not the first to try the same change so I have changed it back and noted in big letters now. Do you think that it would be clear now with the big letters because the change you and one other editor made... it definitely wasn't correct? Thanks. ~ R. T. G 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been reading your articles WAY longer than I've been a user, and they rock! They are probably the best sourced, most knowledgeable, and most reliable articles that I've seen! Are you a college professor? Your expertise and writing style make me suspect this. WikiDude1776 ( talk) 19:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paul. We've collaborated before a long time ago on WP. I was wondering if you could have a look at the Pandora's box article, especially with recently added material on the feminist interpretation which seems to have a lot of OR and POV. It feels fiddly. Ideas? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 23:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:
I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").
Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian ( talk) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Some more (or at least hopefully a little more correct) diffs: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Best regards, Bishonen | talk 02:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC).
Another query for an opinion, Paul. Special:Contributions/Indike001 seems to have summarized without citations? See Works and Days, for one of many examples and the addition of the "subjects" section. Thoughts? -- if you have time. Is it OR or on the up and up? Best wishes and many thanks in advance. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Rf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Ent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
In a nutshell - no I can't. I have been trying to revert vandalism, not cause it. certainly in that last example you gave I was reverting the comments left by the previous user and left a comment at their talk page here: User talk:64.219.39.208. So I'm confused. -- Wintonian ( talk) 02:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If you have a moment, can you answer a question? Does this make any sense? How can a bot delete an article talk page? I have never heard of such a thing. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 13:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The FAC is going well but the section on post-war developments needs some help. As I have said, I am not an expert on modern logic at all. Is it true that there was a period of consolidation after WWII? Was forcing the only result of significance? Do we mention 'reverse mathematics'? Help needed!!! From the other side ( talk) 12:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that {{ fn}} and {{ fnb}} are up for deletion and no longer work. You may want to update your sub-page. Cheers. something lame from CBW 11:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paul. This edit removed several statements, including my own. I assume it was unintentional, but I wasn't sure the best way to go about fixing it, so thought I'd ask you. Happy New Year, anyhow. :) MastCell Talk 04:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Paul, you may be interested in the following discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Computational complexity theory as part of "mathematics". Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, forgot about that. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at
Hi,
Thanks for your note. I've written an explanation of what I reverted and why on the talk page for the article. By all means, let's reach consensus! Roger Pearse ( talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
You recently blocked Qwertyisbest for page-move vandalism. I just noticed a user named Qwertyismykeyboard editing an article Qwertyisbest was interested in, and the assumption of sockpuppetry doesn't seem too far-fetched. Qwertyismykeyboard's edit wasn't vandalism, though. What should be done? Block evasion is prohibited, of course, but calling for checkuser seems like overkill right now. Should I just wait and watch? Yours, Huon ( talk) 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Back in 2005 you discussed this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. The article has since been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 01:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not want to get into a fight over the AD. CE issue: I left a note on Calcearius talk page, will you look at it and see if any thing else needs to added so that this issue does not become contentious. Thanks. Hardyplants ( talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you have a Ph.D.
This is a heated discussion in the Talk:Barack Obama page.
There are some people who insists that President Obama is a professor. There are some that want to diminish his achievements. I take the neutral ground.
I think there is confusion between Professor and professor. The difference escapes many people in the general public. Obama was a part time faculty member and was given the title of Lecturer then Senior Lecturer. Senior Lecturer is very honorable but it's not the same as Professor and Chair.
What do you think? Does the average person know the difference between Professor, the title and professor, the generic profession? I think not. To prevent confusion and misunderstanding and not to diminish the man nor inflate his resume, I think that a simple mention that he was on the part time faculty at the University of Chicago Law School where he was a Lecturer and later Senior Lecturer is very honest, accurate, and neutral.
Please help! JB50000 ( talk) 08:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steven. Thanks for your two years + of service to the AC. It was a pleasure serving (briefly) with you. Paul August ☎ 03:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the note and your work. on those articles. Both are neccesary and Your re-instatements are much appreciated. Regards,
Haploidavey (
talk) 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Any possibility of reinstating this? It is a perfectly good article although it needs Wikifying and a bit more research on how to link it to other articles. Thanks for your help with the other articles 86.184.133.167 ( talk) 20:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You missed the last edit war over whether Euclid had "oriental origins".— Finell 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Usually if you have to manually edit a page to fix the formatting so that your script will accept it, you're doing something very wrong. :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
and what about in a different place? ( recursion) franklin 03:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if you could be so kind as to do the honours again. This refers [1]. Could I possibly see the version of Illuminationism that was deleted by Fram? And why did 'Beeblebrox' revert to an inconsistent set of birth dates for Duns Scotus in the same article? Shouldn't rule C5 be treated with discretion and care? Are any of the people here actually qualified to look after an encyclopedia? Regards John Watkins LLD ( talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paul. I notice you're active in maintaining the article on the Roman emperor Nero. I think there may be vandalism in footnote 5 ("Nero was not a fiddle player..."), but I've looked at some past revisions and it's been in place for awhile, so I'm not sure. Would you mind checking it out and addressing it if appropriate? Thanks, Candent shlimazel ( talk) 03:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This appears to have 6, but from a reading of the top of the page, with 0-1 abstentions, 7 are needed to pass? Cirt ( talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a serious problem. Cirt ( talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, thank you very much Paul August for your very polite and helpful explanations during all this. Cirt ( talk) 21:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
So ... if I am understanding this correctly, an "abstain" ( or a recuse ) reduces the number of votes needed for a particular decision to pass, so an "abstain" is sort of like a "weak support"? Cirt ( talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Paul August, thanks again very very much for your candor and especially for being so polite and kind with me in your responses regarding this. Yours, Cirt ( talk) 02:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking has now been open for 32 days; with only four comments in the past 10 days. RFCBot ran off with the RfC tag two days ago; it's easily time for it to be closed. Due to the nature of the issue, no administrator is truly "uninvolved", but one who is especially well-respected by the community, such as yourself; are the closest thing we've got. Fancy making a close? For reference, I'm contacting former arbitrators who hold admin tools but no other bits. Cheers, Happy‑ melon 19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The template is deprecated, so I thought that they should be changed. I think the reason is because we should not be talking about an article in a hatnote. Explanations prepared if required. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 02:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
After some years of gestation, this article is now largely finished. I am thinking of taking it to FA but would like some thoughts from people first, as I have heard such bad things about this process. It should go there one day, the history of logic is one of the top 50 articles that should be in an encyclopedia. I welcome any thoughts. HistorianofLogic ( talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paul. Thanks for changing the title of my request for clarification. In fact you changed it from a correct title to an incorrect title. You are not the first to try the same change so I have changed it back and noted in big letters now. Do you think that it would be clear now with the big letters because the change you and one other editor made... it definitely wasn't correct? Thanks. ~ R. T. G 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been reading your articles WAY longer than I've been a user, and they rock! They are probably the best sourced, most knowledgeable, and most reliable articles that I've seen! Are you a college professor? Your expertise and writing style make me suspect this. WikiDude1776 ( talk) 19:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paul. We've collaborated before a long time ago on WP. I was wondering if you could have a look at the Pandora's box article, especially with recently added material on the feminist interpretation which seems to have a lot of OR and POV. It feels fiddly. Ideas? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 23:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:
I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").
Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian ( talk) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Some more (or at least hopefully a little more correct) diffs: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Best regards, Bishonen | talk 02:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC).
Another query for an opinion, Paul. Special:Contributions/Indike001 seems to have summarized without citations? See Works and Days, for one of many examples and the addition of the "subjects" section. Thoughts? -- if you have time. Is it OR or on the up and up? Best wishes and many thanks in advance. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Rf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Ent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
In a nutshell - no I can't. I have been trying to revert vandalism, not cause it. certainly in that last example you gave I was reverting the comments left by the previous user and left a comment at their talk page here: User talk:64.219.39.208. So I'm confused. -- Wintonian ( talk) 02:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If you have a moment, can you answer a question? Does this make any sense? How can a bot delete an article talk page? I have never heard of such a thing. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 13:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The FAC is going well but the section on post-war developments needs some help. As I have said, I am not an expert on modern logic at all. Is it true that there was a period of consolidation after WWII? Was forcing the only result of significance? Do we mention 'reverse mathematics'? Help needed!!! From the other side ( talk) 12:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that {{ fn}} and {{ fnb}} are up for deletion and no longer work. You may want to update your sub-page. Cheers. something lame from CBW 11:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)