User talk:Paul August/Archive13
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "O"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "P"s through "S"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Centralized TV Episode Discussion
[edit]Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit!
[edit]Ok. I did not write that on the article. I must have rollbacked a rollback. I'm so sorry! While using Lupin, it must have "double rollbacked". But I did not do that edit! Yes it was an accident, but please keep it mind I did not mean to do it. Sorry - Ohmpandya We need to talk... ♦ contribs 23:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you. Can you please look into how this edit occured? You should do whatever you can to try to make sure that such errors are unlikely to occur in the future. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think I figured out why. We must have both been using Lupin, (anti-vandal tool), and he/she must have clicked "Rollback" just a second before I did. And since the tool did not detect that the vandalism had already been reverted, it let me rollback as well. He/She "rollbacked" the real vandal, and I "rollbacked" him, and put the vandalism back on the page, accidentally, sorry! - Ohmpandya We need to talk... ♦ contribs 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Just curious
[edit]Just out of curiosity, what objection did you have to my addition to the Prime Number page? --71.36.255.217 (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It didn't seem serious. Paul August ☎ 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! --omtay38 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Boolean algebra task force
[edit]I'd like to invite you to participate in the Boolean algebra task force that I am forming. Despite the name, a task force is just an ad hoc subcommittee of a wikiproject to work on a particular issue. In this case, I think that our articles on various aspects of Boolean algebra, propositional logic, and applications would benefit from some big-picture planning of the organization of material into various articles. The task force would not require a great time commitment. The main goal is to work out a proposal for how the material should be arranged. A second goal is for the focus to remain interdisciplinary, including computer science, logic, and mathematics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Ent2
[edit]A tag has been placed on Template:Ent2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
IRC arbitration
[edit]You appear to have cast both a vote in favor of proposed principle 6, and a vote against it. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Paul August ☎ 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I hate it when that happens. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:-)
[edit]Very glad to see you working on the IRC case. Working together I hope we can resolve the core issues in the case. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Flo. I know you don't mean to imply that I haven't been working on this case until now! Since, of course, as you well know, I've been participating in the AC mailing list discussion from the begining.
- For the avoidance of doubt, and the benefit of other readers of this page, I have in fact been "working" on this case all along. I have been closely following all the case pages, even though I've only chosen to comment rarely. In my view, it would have been better not to have accepted this case. Having accepted this case I believe it would now be best to dismiss this case, and I moved for dismissal 12 days ago. Because of this, I chose not to vote on any of the proposals of the case or offer any proposals of my own. On February 1 Steve moved to close the case, and as there was a majority opposed to dismissal, I decided to offer four proposals of my own:
- The status and the significance of the "admin" IRC channel as well as its associated page on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, is unclear.
- The "admin" IRC channel has been the source of many on-wiki disputes and conflicts. There are disputes regarding its status and governance, its misuse, and its relative benefits to the encyclopedia.
- Between December 23 and December 26, 2007, several editors, both supporters and detractors of the "admin" IRC channel were involved in an edit war at Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins.
- Edit-warring is bad even when conducted on non-mainspace pages whose significance and status is unclear and in dispute. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are admonished to avoid such actions and instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel.
- If the case is not to be dismissed, then I believe that these proposals together with the already passing principles, are sufficient for an acceptable resolution of this case. In addition, today I have begun to vote on the rest of the case. I expect to finish voting today. After which I will vote to close the case. If we are not going to dismiss this case then we should close it as soon as possible.
- Flo, I hope you don't mind this overly formal reply, but I didn't want anyone to get the false impression that I have been ignoring this case — far from it! Yes I also hope we can resolve the core issues. You take care too.
- I'm glad to see you voting on the case and adding proposals that you feel reflect the core issues. Last Friday before I left town for the week end, on the arbcom email list I encouraged all interested arbitrators to add their proposals so we can move closer to closing the case. In the email I said that I hoped that we could do a final vote today and close on Feb. 5. I don't think we will meet that deadline but hopefully by the end of the week we will finish up. Your votes today are part of what will make that possible, I think.
- And since I respond to most thread on the mailing list, of course I'm aware of your level of participation in the discussions. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, that should have been "imply" above. I'm glad you're glad ;-) Paul August ☎ 23:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- And since I respond to most thread on the mailing list, of course I'm aware of your level of participation in the discussions. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Set
[edit]Hi Paul. Sorry for attempting to distract you from the all important deliverance of judgment on the land. If you have time, could you take a look at Talk:Set#Set as an abstract object and tell us what you think? I ask you since you have been a frequent contributor to that article. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Oleg, I've posted a comment there. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. I would much rather be discussing "sets" than what I spend all my time now discussing. I can think of nothing more I'd rather be distracted from. I don't really believe in prayer, but if I did I'd ask you to pray for me! God knows I need some kind of help.
WikiProject Manual of Style
[edit]I've started a thread on a proposed new WikiProject to coordinate Manual of Style pages. I think this might provide a mechanism to address the problem without raising concerns about centralization of authority on the main MoS page. Your comments on whether and how such a WikiProject might work would be very valuable. See WT:MoS#WikiProject Manual of Style. Geometry guy 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Your John von Neumann edit
[edit]Note that the MoS guidlines at WP:MOSBIO call for a person's nationality to be mentioned in the opening sentence of the lead. However, I do not believe "German-Hungarian" is an accurate discription of von Neumann's nationality. I would go with "Hungarian-born American", unless he held citizenship in other states in addition to the U.S. and Austria-Hungary. Relevant here are my proposed amendations to this guideline, which I would ask you to comment on here. Thanks! Robert K S (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Your date of birth
[edit]Hello Paul. So you were born on July 19, 2004? Ha Ha, that's cool! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Paul August, I just wanted to inform you that I have taken the Wikipedia delegable proxy experiment live. This is a proposal to let users appoint a trusted individual to represent them in debates that they themselves (whether due to time limitations or whatever reason) are not able to personally participate. This system is ideal for your purposes, since given your Arbcom duties, you have limited time to devote to the other aspects of Wikipedia, but many trusted colleagues here. I encourage you to nominate a proxy. The proxy designation instructions are at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. For instance, if you wish to nominate me as a proxy, you can just go to User:Paul August/Proxy, create a new page, and then enter:
{{subst:Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table/Designate|Absidy}}
I've also come up with this cool advertising banner:
|
Show your support for delegable proxy! Add this userbox to your userpage using {{User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy}} |
(Ordinarily I might view this type of message as a potentially questionable type of canvassing, but I feel entitled to contact you about my ideas and concerns since I am your constituent and you my elected official.) Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing links
[edit]Thanks for fixing links and capitalization etc on the Encyclopedia and Lexicon Technicum articles. I'm new to this and not so sure yet how some of these things work! Terry0051 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration
[edit]Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
PHG Arbcom
[edit]Hi Paul. I would like to share with you some updates about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [2]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [3]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support [4]. Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. Regards PHG (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake. I had never noticed this long comment before, and I overlooked the SGML quotes and the template. I guess the IP wanted to fix the issues arising from the long Google Books URLs and got similarly confused. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a math guy. I can template the section as OR and send out an alert to the maths wikiproject, or esle simply undo. Being a non-math guy, the first option would be my choice... Ling.Nut (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like the community is discussing it... Ling.Nut (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Continuity Property
[edit]Dear Paul,
I am disappointed by your reverts to Continuity property, as the proofs you have reverted to are
a) unnecessary (duplicated elsewhere; I had linked to them)
b) opaque (all of the points proven are proven much more elegantly elsewhere; for example, you may notice if you look carefully that the "proof to claim 2" is a poor proof of the fact that compact subsets of R are bounded)
c) Just plain wrong. Cf. the proof of claim 3, whose notation is confusing and wrong. should instead refer to the image of [a,b].
Your reverts are thoughtless and rash. I am an undergraduate with one semester of Analysis under my belt; last summer, before taking the course, I ran across the page in question and spent several hours trying to make sense of its abstruse constructions. You have done nothing but set up another undergraduate to waste his or her time with this.
Furthermore, regarding your citation of Binmore's "straightforward approach," let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Detritus (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Request for clarification in IRC case
[edit]I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)