User talk:Paul August/Archive9

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Need your Oversight privileges please

Could you please check the oversight log and see if any edits have been hidden from the page history of the article Lebanon. There have been a few recent changes to the text that I can't locate in the page history. Could you check for any possible abuse? Thanks a lot. —LestatdeLioncour t 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malebranche

Yes I have reasons to doubt that. I am preparing an University exam about Dante's Inferno and making quite deep studies on that. On the books I have (La Divina Commedia by Bosco-Reggio, Le Monnier 1988, and Inferno di Dante by Vittorio Sermonti, Rizzoli 2001 and these two books list an extensive bibliography each) that is not mentioned. Moreover it says that some critics tried to combine names of Black hguelphs families to the names of the devils. The only correspondence was Rubicante to Cante Gabrielli da Gubbio, the podestà of Florence who signed the exhile act for Dante. I can go on and on... I just wrote a pege on italian wikipedia it:I Malebranche where all those names where analized, they are quite funny. Some times they are similar to some family names (Malebrance, Raffacani, Rubaconte) but these are florentine families, not just from Lucca, and this can apply only to some devils, other are taken fro popular devil-characters (Alichino from French Hallequin, Farfarello from a kind on follet), others are invented by Dante. If you wish you can copy this in the discussion page of the list. Sometimes also books gets wrong, but comparing as many as possible we can try to get a more valid idea. Thank you--Sailko 12:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you change back? I would really cancel the reference to Lucca in that paragraph. --Sailko 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I agree with you about removing the reference to Lucca there. I've made another edit to that entry to clarify the entry a bit more. Thanks for taking an interest in this unfinished list. It is more or less complete through Inf., XXIX, perhaps you might like to work with me on finishing it? Paul August ☎ 19:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have to study only Inferno, I am checking item to item, I found very complete so far. I will try to add something --Sailko 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MFD for WP:PAIN

Was this because you changed your mind, or because you realized that the discussion had closed? If the latter, you might be interested to know that it's open again. Grandad 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Thanks for the heads up. Paul August ☎ 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Just wondering

Of course. :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano

I notice Fred bauder pulled the plug on the Motions in prior cases relating to Giano [1]. What's the current situation - is the intention to bring a RFAR against him, bring a RFAR regarding IRC, quietly drop it all and hope it goes away or is there deadlock behind closed doors? I'm very concerned about all this. The discussions I've seen from the logs are quite reprehensible and the justifications implausible, is Giano to suffer another RFAR for some righteous indignation whilst others can act with impunity because of a technicality that their actions were conducted "off-wiki". I don't imagine you can give any kind of detailed response but it would be nice to know what's going on rather than Fred just deleting the motion without comment. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was fairly clear that there wasn't enough support for those motions to pass, that is why I suspect that Fred removed them. There has been much discussion on all the issues you mention, but we haven't reached any conclusions yet. Frankly I've been quite disturbed by what I've seen in those logs. I will pass along your concerns. Paul August ☎ 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview

Hello, and congratulations on being named to the Arbitration Committee. The Wikipedia Signpost is doing a post-election interview with the arbitrators elected this year. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability. We request that responses be submitted any time between now and Monday, 17:00 UTC, to guarantee that your responses will be published. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
Test
After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
Test
How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Pi

Can I ask why this was reverted? [2] I am trying to muddle through the edit history now that Pi has been semi protected. The reference to pi is sourced on the wikipage the editor gave. Hazelorb 03:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't look closely enough at that edit, I thought it was vandalism. Paul August ☎ 05:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I figured, when I looked at the edit history (you were reverting the one before that). :) Hazelorb 05:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Did you get my email? --Cyde Weys 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for your input. Paul August ☎ 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input required

Hi Paul,

In spite of my best attempts to continue a normal life on wiki, thanks to Mr Sidaway, the whole debate has restarted here [3], Bishonen has just made a very profound and to the point edit, which I think you should read, I of course have made several :-). However, I am wondering how much longer the arbcom intends for this deplorable mess to continue, before it chooses to act. Of course I could ignore, but on-wiki silence is taken as agreement, and I don't agree, so I will continue to challenge this situation until it is resolved. Giano 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giano. I've just read Bishonen's comment. I find it reasonable and to the point. Thanks for pointing it out. (putting on my somewhat battered ArbCom hat) The ArbCom most definitly does not want "this deplorable mess to continue". (hat falls off) But It is not clear to me whether the ArbCom has, or should have, any jurisdiction over the Wikipedia IRC channels, and I don't know when or if the ArbCom will act in any further way on this. But it does seem clear to me that as long as these IRC channells continue to bear Wikipedia's name, then Wikipedia should have Jurisdiction over them. This may be a matter though that the community will have to deal with itself. As for silence being interpreted as agreement, I think everyone knows where you stand. Paul August ☎ 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::*"The ArbCom most definitely does not want "this deplorable mess to continue" is all very well for them to say, but what are they doing about it? That's what I want to know, and probably all the other contributing editors on this site. I cannot imagine what is so difficult to decide, all these people who left the arbcom years ago, or who were only on it for five minutes - get rid of them! Discount them! Dismiss them! - Make a decision, this cannot be allowed to continue. Giano 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests_for_arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945

Hi Paul, sombody has made me aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on canvassing. I thought my original message was reasonably neutral, however I do apologise. As a relative newby, I ought to take some time and read all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Martintg 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC

I added my statement, and would like to encourage you to contribute as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will write something up. Paul August ☎ 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

You are, of course, correct. --Ideogram 06:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, umm correct about what? Paul August ☎ 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This. --Ideogram 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad you agree. Paul August ☎ 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you a favor? Can you suggest to Giano that edits such as this are not a good idea? --Ideogram 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish now I had never asked you what edit you were referring to. Without your answer above, I doubt Giano or anyone else would have noticed (which was the point of my original edit). Giano knows that I don't think fighting fire with fire is appropriate — which is what he was doing, responding with a "tit", for your "tat", to which i see you have now responded with another "tat". I wish you both would just stop! Paul August ☎ 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wouldn't have seen it, if he had not been so anxious to draw attention to it! it seemed a shame to deprive him. Giano 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in fairness to Ideogram I did ask. In perhaps a futile attempt to stop this, I have deleted both of your recent messages to each other, since I don't think either was constructive. I hope neither of you mind. Paul August ☎ 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that Paul. I think we're ok for now. --Ideogram 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram, Giano - It is really quite distressing to see you both trying to out-bait the other. Please both just try to leave each other alone and write some articles (yes, Giano, I have seen the Châteaux Grimaldi - very nice). If you are at a loss for articles to write, the history of ice cream cones is sadly neglected: Agnes Marshall, Carlo Gatti, Italo Marchiony, Ernst Hamwi all need articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALoan, I take issue with your characterization of my activities as "baiting". I included a little dig at Giano, Paul August quite rightly removed it, and, when I expressed appreciation for his edit the original edit was revealed. Frankly, I am amazed at how many people put the blame on me when someone else is unable to control their temper. --Ideogram 05:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no meaningful difference between "a little dig" and "baiting". Ideogram please just stop. Paul August ☎ 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of being blamed for other people being unable to control their temper. While I admit to needling people occasionally, it is not my responsibility to control someone else's temper. If you want to play this game all I have to do is lose my temper over every little thing and I can blame everyone else for "baiting" me. This pretty much sums up Giano, Irpen, Bishonen, and Geogre's behavior and it is why there is so much conflict between us. --Ideogram 06:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's hilarious. Any person posts once to urge you to stay on topic, and there are three, increasingly hysterical and unreasoned, edits from Ideogram in a row, with escalating anger and a feeling that he's finally getting it out of his system. Golly, but that's not what we're here for -- the catharsis of social friction. And then vows, here, there, everywhere, that he will bring the "fight" to people. I don't agree with fighting fire with fire (or, much more to the point fighting a stone with a rapier). Paul removes a personal attack, and Ideogram takes it as an opportunity to make three more. Giano replies, and Ideogram goes on to make three more. Holy cow, but this is inappropriate.
At this point, I saw an effort to communicate, a nearly inescapable one. When a person is invulnerable to reason, you might reach for wit. When wit bounces off, you might reach for plain talk insult. When that fails, you go to ignoring the person. That's where I've been, but that doesn't work, either, because my name keeps getting mentioned as a person he needs to drive away, to teach a lesson to, etc. There is one thing left to do, but I don't believe in it.
The most important thing is that some arguments are, "You are wrong." Those can be answered. Some are "I am upset," and those cannot be entered into. I think Ideogram's arguments are that he's unhappy. That's too bad, but it's not our business. Geogre 15:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not unhappy, and I have not lost my temper, although you apparently have. I have noticed you try to "spin" reality with a dedication worthy of Pravda. When will you learn that you can't make something true just by saying so? --Ideogram 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linear equation

I left a note on the article talk page (Talk:Linear equation) explaining my reasoning; I'd like to know why "recent changes that [you] don't think are helpful" are so and why a complete revert was necessary.—Kbolino 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the talk page. Paul August ☎ 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durova/Community enforced mediation

I've based a proposal on the mediation from the Piotrus-Ghirla case. Your input would be welcome. Please reply on the proposal talk page. Durova^Charge! 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Durova. I think this is very much worth a try. I have responded at that talk page. Paul August ☎ 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hilbert's problems

This seems a little unnecessary to me, given we have Category:Hilbert's problems. Given your area of expertise, do you have a view? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will take this up on the Mathematics project's talk page. Paul August ☎ 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thanks. Navigational boxes are all well and good, but only where they add value, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering?

How you and your colleaugues are getting on with your statements for posting here[4]? Giano 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is going slowly. Can't speak for the others. Paul August ☎ 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You have mail. --Ideogram 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've repled. (er replied) Paul August ☎ 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-pled? Did you plead a first time? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I plead and plead, like a voice in the wilderness sometimes. Paul August ☎ 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Paul August is lost in the wilderness, does he make a sound? --Ideogram 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail again. --Ideogram 17:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal messages to be deleted

Hello Paul, I think I answered your (justified) remark about Absolute value#Absolute value for rings. I know I answer to a question by an anther question, but my aim was to clean up Valuation. Maybe you have time in the next four days to say a word in the discussion. 85.3.195.217 12:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

Thanks for the clarification. WLU 13:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 13:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Thoughts and an ArbCom question

I read with great concern about a high-ranking user's conduct - namely essjay's lying to the New Yorker about who he was whilst representing Wikipedia - and his apparent attitude to the..erm 'flexibility' of the truth - reminds me a little of Lord Archer in the UK. Anyway - I wonder if the Arb Com would have jurisdiction over essjay's various high-ranking positions here at wikipedia if a case were to be brought? - If you (plural) found his conduct unethical, would you be empowered to do anything about it? - I came to you because you seem to be impartial, and i respect your thoughts.... thank you, Purples 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read what where? Paul August ☎ 05:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul - i stumbled across this at wikipediareview.com - but [5] this is the New Yorker story - and on [[6]] this page he claimed to be a tenured professor, and hold the following degrees;

Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD)

He now admits to having made all that up, and I don't think that's right - not to mention that it could really harm the credibility of wikipedia in various communities. I'm not sure why I came to you other than the fact that you seem a very decent chap. Many thanks, Purples 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does he admit that this is all not true? Paul August ☎ 07:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Paul, should have included that one also - [7] - i think he seems very cavalier about something that I think many would consider so serious. Purples 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that he would lie about such things, and such behavour reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Things like this inevitably entail a certain loss of trust, credibility and respect. Paul August ☎ 07:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm also really unsettled by this user basically running checkuser - and most seriously having use of oversight powers, which surely can only ever work if users are beyond reproach. It seems to me that a small section of the wiki community has trusted essjay, and elevated his authority over the community as a whole enormously, who remain largely unaware of such serious transgressions. What should happen now? Thanks for listening. Purples 07:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re. revoking arbcom remedy

Hi Paul, on 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have raised some questions regarding this remedy (see below), and Fred Bauder has now initiated a motion to revoke these remedies. As you are an active member of the arbitration committee I respectfully ask you to consider my case. The questions I raised regarding the decision of the Kosovo arbcom were:

why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Dmcdevit, the administrator on the Kosovo arbitration committee who initiated the remedies against me has chosen to vote against revoking these. I have, in turn, replied to his argumentation here. Sincere regards Osli73 00:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Be careful what you wish for! Newyorkbrad 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this user...

User_talk:204.100.129.254 This IP has a long history of vandalism and you have blocked him for a month last month. He came back and has continued to vandalize wikipedia pages. He recently vandalized the Anabolic steroid article just a few minutes ago. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now blocked for six months. Paul August ☎ 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar image question

Hello.

I'm looking into the Barn Star article, and was wondering if you have any sources to support calling the image you uploaded a Barnstar?

Thanks Pjbflynn 04:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry. Paul August ☎ 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental? [8]

If so, please fix; if not, please explain. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Yes it was an accicent. Don't know how that happened, probably an edit confilict. I will fix it if it hasn't already been. Paul August ☎ 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt wheel war case - remedy

I saw your rewording of remedy #5 re Freakofnurture ... but it still reads prospectively ... how about "have been restored"? Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joke time

From the Russian jokes page:

Two drunks get onto a bus. One of them asks “Will this bus take me to Lenin Street?” The bus driver says, “No, it won't.” After a pause, the other man inquires “What about me?”

I'm assuming the second man is a mathematician. ;-) --KSmrq^T 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed out loud, always a good feeling. And good timing, I needed a laugh just now. Paul August ☎ 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your new responsibilities, I'd guess you could use a smile every week. :-D

Remember, the university is much bigger than Wikipedia. Archimedes died at the hands of an ignorant Roman soldier, the Library of Alexandria suffered repeated fires and indignities, and the Maya codices were purposely destroyed by the Spanish. So far the sentient reptiles inhabiting exoplanet OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb seem completely unmoved by any of these tragedies, as they are still coming to grips with the passing of the dinosaurs. <:-O --KSmrq^T 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient reptiles living on a planet of 5 Earth masses with a surface temperature of 50 K (-223°C)? Do they have liquid helium, hydrogen or neon for blood? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously these sentient reptiles differ somewhat from the common terrestrial reptile; but then, so did dinosaurs. ;-) --KSmrq^T 11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TMBSSNMOTW"reptile"OWIWNPA. HAND. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WF, WSCAOCUOA! Paul August ☎ 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KSmrq, yes, but having a sense of proportion can be dangerous! Paul August ☎ 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

--Ideogram 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Paul, query for you here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slim, I've replied there. Paul August ☎ 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, a response for you. [9] Your proposal will be misused by every troll who learns about it, so I'd appreciate it if you would reconsider or reword. ArbCom isn't supposed to change policy or long-standing practise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with UC's recent statement there. Paul August ☎ 02:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration templates

I like your changes on the /Proposed decision template. I don't know if it's on your to-do list, but the introductory paragraph of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop could probably use some streamlining as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. — Sorry couldn't resist ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can just an 'umble clerk really touch such an important page as that? :) Newyorkbrad 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's one sure fire way to find out. ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I played with it a bit—comments appreciated. Newyorkbrad 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An improvement. Paul August ☎ 19:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"moving new request to top"

If you're going to do my job every time I step away from the keyboard, there's no point in having me. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to make people feel as useless as I can ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll reciprocate by casting some votes for you the next time you're away. :) Newyorkbrad 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be great! Paul August ☎ 18:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arb

Hi quick question regarding the votes, do we get to defend our selves at all? or just let it go until we get banned. Artaxiad 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can comment on the proposed decision at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision. Paul August ☎ 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not really sure if everyone reads them, I think we all should have a final comment on the decision, I do stupid things sometimes I apologize, alot of users are also upset because of this, all once good contributors now half the ethnic community is being banned all of which are positive I don't mind myself that much, this is my first case so I'm clueless so after the majority of votes go for ban do we get banned immediately I mean a finally comment would do, but yet again if I do everyone is going to reply clogging it up other editors and I don't have the nerves to debate anymore, this case is long and stressing, going for non-arb members who will debate with me, regards. Artaxiad 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read that page, I'm sure others do as well. And it will remain there as part of the case records, for future review. Paul August ☎ 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but I just don't want people to bash me, its pretty annoying and old, I'm sure others will comment on it immediately. Artaxiad 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I made a statement here if you wanted to fly by [10] thanks for your cooperation. Artaxiad 03:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way regarding Azerbaijani, he's only edit warred in a few articles, not to mention those articles are unrelated to this case, so presenting them here is not fair its like bringing in a user from another article on sports who reverted here to be paroled for edit warring, hes never attacked anyone very positive contributer, he was added by Grandmaster who has been adding unrelated users just because he has edit warred with them so that they can be punished so they wont have the advantage, by the way if I'm bothering you feel free to remove this. Artaxiad 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this and block as soon as possible, parole violation, [11] Artaxiad 19:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, many kudos for going through the details of the Armenia-Azerbaijan case. I would like to draw your attention to my talk page, where admin Golbez is concerned about edit warring at Nagorno-Karabakh by HyeProfile (talk · contribs). He seems to have just returned from a long break and so was not included as a party here. I suppose we can deal with him in the usual manner if he is not made a party to the case. Alternatively, could he be a sleeper of a user about to be banned? Thatcher131 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eupator

You have proposed to soften a measure against user:Eupator. But just today he again removed sourced information put by several users on page Yerevan without substantial explanation [12]--Dacy69 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a content matter, the "source" is a tourist guide produced by an embassy employee who says "As the after-hours work of a non-specialist who has had time to visit only a selection of the sites mentioned, this guide is far from a complete archaeological, historical, cultural and/or practical guidebook to Armenia." Surely if the facts alleged are true then are additional significant sources to be found. Assuming editors are capable of working politely and cooperatively with each other, the replacement of less reliable and/or biased sources with more reliable and/or unbiased sources happens all the time without controversy on hundreds of articles every day. As an arbitration matter, while I can not speak for Paul, it seems that he found the evidence for edit warring persuasive but the evidence for personal attacks lacking; hence the editing restriction rather than a site ban. If mere edit warring were enough for a site ban, you would be on the same bus out of town. Thatcher131 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, as a p.s., I'm going to say that this kind of complaint is why you (collectively) are being restricted and/or banned. Your only reactions seem to be revert or complain. There is a universe of other options, including third opinion, request for comment, and mediation. If you (collectively) don't figure out how to use these tools, you (collectively) are likely to spend the next 12 months either blocked for breaking your 1RR per week limit, or frustrated and angry, or both. Thatcher131 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, about edit - Eupator removed not only my edit but others. I have showed now on talkpage another neutral source to support my edit. But question is not about content but about behavior. As for learning of DR - I have filed 2 AMA requests, several times proposed mediation and 2 times third party opinion on various pages. I have not violated 1rr rule. I have not reverted anything on page Yerevan - just added information. I follow Arbcom desicion. The ultimate question is not about someone's ban. I don't support much that idea. I left my comments and proposals on that on talkpage of Arbcom desicion[13]--Dacy69 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted because you had added that same exact line, word by word several times in the past. Don't bother distorting the truth. Knowing full well that there is no consensus for such pov wording and that it has been reverted in the past you still added that during ArbCom! That is essentially willful disturbance. You also know full well that as a result, eventually someone will add the same thing to the Baku article. Enough already. All NK articles including the main one say that both populations "left" during the war to their own countries. That's called neutrality! So what is the purpose of adding that to the Yerevan article other than a blatant act of provocation? Are there no Azeri articles that need improving? No missing articles that need to be created? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provocation is done by such suers like Fadix and Artaxiad. Actually, some Azeri city pages has conflict-related text. So, I can't called it neutrality when one side is full of conflict-related information, and other is clean. Ganja, for example, has separate section about Armenian community. The line which I added is well-known fact and by no means is POV. On talkpage I presented additional evidence. Previously I stepped aside from Yerevan because of understanding with user Aivazovsky to work together on certain issues to reach compromise. That understanding is not in place any more because some users destroyed it. But I see no reason to continue this dispute here. We can resolve this issue thru mediation.--Dacy69 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of line of thinking and reasoning is exactly the cause of the arbitration and the atmosphere of a battle. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To work together with Aivazovsky? To resolve thru mediation? Indeed, for just one day yesterday you made 3 rv's. That was a reason we all are brought to arbitration.--Dacy69 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were essentially blackmailing him, "if you don't do this I wont do that" sort of way. You see Wikipedia as a battlefield instead of a knowledge repository. Prove me wrong! Stay away from non-Azeri related articles and I'll see that you're not just "Adil Baguirov light". When I say non-Azeri related articles I don't mean topics like Ganja or NK obviously. I was reverting your buddy Baguirov whom you still refuse to criticize. Why don't you point out that he made over a dozen revert with his disruptive rubbish? Anyway, we are on another users talk page if you haven't noticed so reply to me directly.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, from what I see you guard the Armenia related articles from information about Azerbaijani people. It is true about the article about Yerevan. At the same time, there’s no problem with adding info about Armenians to the articles such as Nakhichevan or Ganja. I think it should be ok to provide such info, of course when it is based on reliable sources. Grandmaster 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peano axioms up for A-class rating

Hi Paul. I suppose you have no time to follow what happens at the mathematics WikiProject, but we have set up a process to grant articles that deserve it an A-class rating at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating. Recently, our article on the Peano axioms was nominated. Unfortunately, there are no comments from anybody who really knows logic, so I was hoping that you could have a look at the article, see whether there is anything there that would embarrass us, and leave a comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Peano axioms. Thanks, and also many thanks for the thankless work on the Arbitration Committee. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jitse. Thanks for the thanks. Although I have a dilettante's interest in foundations, I'm afraid I don't know much more about the Peano axioms than the run-of-the-mill general topologist. But I will have a look at that article when I find the time, I could use the diversion ;-) I'm sure Trovatore knows more than I do, did you ask him?

Always nice to hear from you. I have begun to dread the yellow "You have new messages" banner — cast your gaze above, except for KSmrq's "Joke time", little to look forward to — so your's was a pleasant surprise. Regards. Paul August ☎ 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, it's the dreaded yellow banner again. Phew, it's only Jitse. Crap, he's asking for assistance in the Balkan wars and Srebrenica massacre …

Just kidding. I'm of course mightily disappointed that you don't know everything about Peano axioms and will need a good glass of whisky tonight to get over it. Somehow, I forgot to ask Trovatore; I'll do this right now. But you must be very tired when you start writing your's with an apostrophe. I do hope you have an army of shrinks on-site to combat any burn-out symptoms. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikns? What burnedout syptuims? Ummm whixky! Piano axioms? You must mean Tuner's Axiom: You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish. Paul August ☎ 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]