User talk:Paul August/Archive17

Happy New Year

Thanks Flo. Paul August ☎ 17:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edit

Do you know that in this edit, you changed the article to an article about a different person? The Australian combinatorialist and the American Mathematical physicist born in Connecticut and now at the University of Toledo are two different people. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. Don't remember anything about this edit. Can't vouch for or explain it at the moment. I'll look into it more when I get a chance. Feel free to edit it however you think appropriate. Paul August ☎ 00:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quis custodiet?

-Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-Bishzilla! (See top left.) Bishonen | talk 14:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Eeek! But though I still have the mop and bucket, don't know that I am much of a custodian. Paul August ☎ 14:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continual low-intensity Cantor-babble

Paul,

I'm getting pretty tired of all this back and forth on Cantor re Judaism. Of course I would very gladly do something to address the issue myself, but as you may or may not know, I no longer have access to English-language libraries. I only have access to the Internet. Would you and perhaps others be willing to access all of the sources listed etc. and take on the task of revamping the "Ancestry" section, addressing each and every statement/point in a non-OR and non-POV manner? Geometry guy recommended your name in this respect. I'm also contacting Trovatore and Pmanderson. Tks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't have the time at the moment to deal with this. Paul August ☎ 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Broken links

Sorry about that, and thank you very much for fixing them! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. A bit of regex magic made the job relatively painless. I wanted you to know about it so you might be forewarned with respect to other moves like this. Paul August ☎ 13:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spyware

After clicking on the Blender (software) link form the Graphics Lab, I followed the URL to the website (www.blender.org). After installation began, I got a pop-up from my Comcast Spyware software saying it had found large ammounts of Spyware in the software. Then I tried it again today to see if there was any difference, and sure enough, still Spyware. Should there be a note on the Blender (software) page & Graphics Lab's page?

Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attalus I at FAR

I have nominated Attalus I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)">?

Hey FayssalF, what's the deal with the "(Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)">" in (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)">these edits? Paul August ☎ 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having the same question. I've just asked the clerks to figure it out. I'll stop voting till tomorrow. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's a bug in WikEd. The problem should be pretty much cleared up now. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Square roots?

I don't understand why you've twice reverted the article square root to make it contain "Even in non-standard positional numeral systems, the only notable exception is golden ratio base." What do you think that means, and why is it preferable to attaching the dependent clause "Even in non-standard positional numeral systems" to the clause it actually refers to, which is in the previous sentence? 128.100.5.116 (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 128.100.5.116. Sorry I had to revert your edits, and thanks for discussing this rather than just continuing to insist on your edit, that's the best way to handle editorial disagreements. Let me try to explain why I think your edits are problematic.

The section in question reads:

The square roots of the perfect squares (1, 4, 9, 16, etc.) are integers. In all other cases, the square roots are irrational numbers, and therefore their representations in any standard positional notation system are non-repeating. Even in non-standard positional numeral systems, the only notable exception is golden ratio base.

You changed the second sentence above so that the frist two sentences read:

The square roots of the perfect squares (1, 4, 9, 16, etc.) are integers. In all other cases, the square roots are irrational numbers, and therefore their representations in any standard positional notation system are non-repeating, even in non-standard positional numeral systems.

This reads as asserting that in all numbering systems, both standard and non-standard, every irrational number has a non-repeating representation, which is simply false. The article in fact provides a counterexample, the Golden ratio base.

You ask above about the sentence:

Even in non-standard positional numeral systems, the only notable exception is golden ratio base.

I concede this sentence is a bit problematic. What it is trying to say is that, not only is it the case that irrational numbers have non-repeating representations in standard positional notation systems, they also have non-repeating representations in most non-standard systems as well, the Golden ratio base, being the only notable exception.

Does this make sense? In any case, I'm happy to discuss this more, but the best place for such discussions is on the talk page of the article in question here, that way other interested editors of that article can participate as well. If you have more to say on the matter, we can copy the above discussion to the talk page and continue it there.

Regards,

Paul August ☎ 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, I don't see this paragraph as talking about any irrational numbers other than the square roots of non-square integers, so I don't know how you get from either wording of it to a statement that all irrational numbers have nonterminating representations in all bases. The more limited statement that all irrational square roots of integers have nonterminating representations is also as you say "problematic" (indeed, false) - the golden ratio base isn't the only exception, you can easily construct, say, a number system with base root-two in which root-two will terminate. I don't know why golden-ratio is a more notable nonstandard exceptional base than root-two; I'm pretty sure I've read about both in the recreational math literature, though I don't have references handy. Anyway, my only real interest was in the grammar. I think the wording I proposed is no less factually correct than the wording you reverted it to, and has the advantage of being closer to English. But I'm not willing to spend time writing new material to correct the factual problems and make the article really cover the material perfectly; I meant to make a simple punctuation fix and was quite surprised anyone would bother to disagree. I'll leave it alone at this point. 128.100.5.116 (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy the above discussion to talk:Square root and reply there. Paul August ☎ 18:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect

Hello Paul,

Thanks for your correction to codomain; I know little of the subject of function anatomy myself, and was merely trying to adapt a dictionary definition I had on hand to make the introduction more understandable to the average person. I guess my dictionary is wrong. I think Wolfram Mathworld explains it well: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Codomain.html. Maybe we should adapt that definition for the article? As an aside, would it be correct to assert the following?

The codomain is a set Y such that

\{y\in \mathbf {Y} :y=f(x)\}

for outputs y of ƒ.

Thanks for your help. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What dictionary were you referencing, and what definition did it give? Unfortunately your attempt to specify the codomain above does not make sense, since you are using "Y" to define "Y". What you have written above is closer to the definition of the image of a function (which as your Mathworld link points out is different from the domain. For a function f, with domain X and codomain Y, the image of f can be idefined as:

\{y\in Y:\exists x\in X(y=f(x))\},

which reads in words, "the set of all y in Y, such that there exists an x in X for which y = f(x). However — given the modern definition of a function as an ordered triple (X, Y, G), where X is the domain, Y is the codomain and G is the graph of f — there is no way to use such a specification to define the codomain, because the codomain of f is simply not definable in terms of its inputs and outputs (i.e. its graph), as different functions can have the same inputs and outputs.

Paul August ☎ 17:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to pop in and say thank you for all of the work you have been doing to make sure that decisions are well-formatted, properly assessed, and then statistically analysed. I've found myself referring to the stats periodically, and really appreciate that the decisions are properly kept in order. You know...you could come back for the last few months of your elected term... :-) Risker (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks. Glad someone thinks these things are useful. Can't say how much longer I will continue to this. As for my coming back ... no thanks ;-) Paul August ☎ 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Breaks is just a way of citing multiple citations, which I first used in El Greco, and then evolved in Roman-Persian Wars to distinct between primary and secondary sources, but I have no intention to impose them. It is up to you! Of course, I'll add any sources I've used before going to sleep, and it is up to you to judge is these sources should stay or go. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to me, the breaks just make the "Notes" section, unnecessarily longer. As for quality of the sources I will take a look once you tell me what they are. And as for who is to judge, that will be all of us of course ;-) By the way thanks for your good work here. Paul August ☎ 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the FARC, they are sources from google booking. I have no access to printed sources, and therefore this is only what I find in the Google Book (focusing to as modern as possible secondary sources of established publishers). If you want I can add the urls in the sources.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The urls would be helpful. Paul August ☎ 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here Mitchel has a very long and interesting analysis on Attalus' Gaul War; here is the url, in case you want to add something to the article: [1].--Yannismarou (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finnegans Wake

Hello. I recently made a constructive edit to the aforementioned page, which could not be conceived of as vandalism in any way. However, you rolled back the edit shortly after. Because rollback does not leave an edit summary, please do not use it to rollback good faith constructive edits, as there is no reason left for the reversal.

24.13.84.240 (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think changing the language tag for Finegan's Wake from "English" to "Idioglossia" was a serious edit, hence the revert. You say you made the edit in good faith, and I will take your word for it. Thus I apologize for having not given a reason for my revert, which would have been that, as our article clearly says, despite Joyce's use of what might be called "idioglossia", Finnegans wake is nevertheless written "basically" in English. Paul August ☎ 12:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate suggestion?

[2] Okay, so maybe it isn't the way some others would have done it, but is there a reason for the comment being removed? Perhaps you have an alternate suggestion for me? Risker (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw geez, and here I was hoping you might have a better idea. :-) No worries, and thanks. Risker (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophocles GAR

It seems that discussion is occurring in several locations. Could you please comment at Talk:Sophocles/GA1 on the status of this article in terms of retaining its rating.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there. Paul August ☎ 13:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

We both seemed to have overlooked R7 and R7.1, they both appear to be equally passing, but I personally feel 7.1 is the preferred one. Thoughts? Tiptoety ^talk 19:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes R7.1 is clearly preferred over R7. Paul August ☎ 19:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty lame, but I'll give it a shot...

A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar. The sock puppet says "I'll have a beer". The meat puppet says "I'll have a beer". Jimbo says "I'll start an open, collaborative project to establish pillars, policies, guidelines, essays and noticeboards from which to spend one million hours to develop consensus on whether or not any reliable sources verifiably state that there is any beer here, or that this is even a bar at all."

Best I can do at the moment. Franamax (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad ;-) Paul August ☎ 22:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar. The sock puppet happened to be a rabbi, and the meat puppet was a priest. However that isn't really important for the purposes of this joke. Anyhow the rabbi and the priest and Jimbo got to talking about religion and it was a pretty good conversation, but they were in London where (I'm told) the pubs close early, so they had to cut it short which was too bad because they were all enjoying themselves. One day later an admin blocked the rabbi and priest for sock and meat puppetry respectively without even knowing they had gotten a wee bit pissed with Jimbo the night before. Someone (probably a rollbacker, knowing them) thought about starting an AN/I thread about how ironic the whole situation was but then got distracted by something else and didn't bother. Look, I didn't say it was a joke. Fine, I did, but I was lying when I said that. And why in the hell did you make me do this anyway? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that could go into Wiktionary as an example of lame effort! Take my advice, on your next try, mention the 12-inch pianist sitting in the corner. ;) I am sooo going to win this contest... :) Franamax (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very meta—the humor is at an extraordinarily high level. I'm not even allowed to talk about it with you! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're one of them as uses em-dashes instead of plain 'ol hyphens. If you're reckless enough to use the extra four bytes of server space, I'm clearly out of my element here. Where are the protective monsters when you need help? Franamax (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know about the extra four bytes in em-dashes? Clearly someone else with meta-humor clearance has been leaking information. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there's some serious leakage here, but it sure ain't information... Franamax (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar. The sock puppet says "I'll have the exact same drink as the patron sitting out on the patio, who I've never seen before in my life despite the strange coincidence that our cars have the same license plate number, but it doesn't matter because I'm getting drunk so at least I won't be driving that car home and it's not my car anyway." The sock puppet knocks over his drink, runs out of the bar, slaps a please-unblock-me-now template on his car and drives home using the back roads. As all this is happening, the meatpuppet steal Jimbo's wallet. At that moment, Jimbo was enlightened. OK, I'm just trying to make Bigtime's pathetic effort respectable now, I can't even rip off Buddhism properly. Bet I could program a bot to do an even worse job though... Franamax (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a winner

thumb|right

The contest is ending early due to a deluge of entries, and because of the emergence of a clear winner. I'd like to thank all those who entered, and acknowledge the obvious amount of time and effort everyone put into their work. Congratulations to all. Now for the prize winners. First prize goes to Franamax, for being the first to enter. First prize also goes to Bigtimepeace, for being first to enter second. Come on up guys and receive your prizes.

Finally "Best in show" goes to our own Paul August for the following entry:

A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar. The sock puppet orders a beer, and logs onto his favorite website and votes in a straw poll about the merits of straw versus socks. Seeing that the sock side is losing, he logs onto a second account, votes again, and offers to buy his friend the meat puppet a pork pie if he will do the same. Which the meat puppet promptly does. Both puppets immediately get blocked, with the message: "Congratulations you've been blocked, Naaaa na naaaa na naaaa nah". This causes a debate to ensue as to whether this is funny or not. And Paul the August, naturally decides to offer a prize for the best completion of "A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar ..." Paul enters his own contest and and awards his doggerel "Best in show". What about Jimbo you say? Well observing all this Jimbo orders a "scotch neat", and says, to no one in particular, "That Paul, what a fine fellow."

Wow, Neither joke nor meta-joke but allegory! Well done Paul!

Paul August ☎ 20:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad this contest is closed

Because my entry would have read as follows (submitted for your enertainment): A sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar. The rabbi turns to the priest and says to him, "They'll let anybody in here nowadays." The priest replies, "I need a citation for that." -- llywrch (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;-) It's never too late for an Honorable Mention. Paul August ☎ 18:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My acceptance speech

(Sobs, but carefully keeps good side toward camera) Thank you, this is the best day of my life. Especially considering my recent ordeal where the garbage truck backed into the utility pole just outside my dwelling, the one with the 3 transformers and 37 different wiring connections, one of which was labelled Wikipedia. It will all be in my upcoming documentary, including "Putting toothpaste on the brush in the dark", "When the apprentice dropped the one good drill bit and broke it", "When they drove the bucket truck into the tree", and "Even though you're really cautious after startup and only have one single lamp lit, it still gets nuked and it was one of those large-base trilight bulbs that are really hard to find nowadays". I know that God was watching over me and helped me win this award.

I've actually been considering uspacing this whole shebang with an eye to donating it to the project as a humour page. It's relatively fertile ground. Has anyone asked Jimbo for his contest entry? Franamax (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Jimbo knows nothing about this contest (nor do the sock and meat puppets). Feel free to ask him (or them) for entries. Paul August ☎ 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of A Man In Black final decision

If you're interested in proofing the tallies, numbering, and such for the final decision of the A Man In Black case, I've written a draft at User:AGK/C. You're free to correct, update, or comment on that draft at your leisure. Regards, AGK 20:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Paul August ☎ 20:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you. AGK 20:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]