User talk:Paul August/Archive6

I dont care if you hate him, just show some respect for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.190.161 (talk • contribs) 20:28, April 3, 2006

I don't hate him. What is your source that he is dead? In any case, I'm sorry but your "Rest in peace" message, is inappropriate — it is not encyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you block this user or 24 hours, or semi-protect the article? The Mr. T thing was an April Fools, just like this character. Sparky 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for 24 hours for violation of 3RR. Paul August ☎ 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job, thanks. Sparky 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul,

I was wondering why you have removed the link to [Humbug! Online], from the Logical Fallacy entry, when this weblog specifically deals with logical fallacies?

Including a fallacy list section, all with actual examples of:

   * Appeal to Authority
   * Argument by Artifice
   * Argument by Slogan
   * Argument to Consequences
   * Begging the Question
   * Browbeating
   * Burden of Proof
   * Burden of Solution
   * Cultural Origins
   * Exaggerated Conflict
   * Factoid Propagation
   * False Analogy
   * False Attribution
   * False Cause; Correlation Error
   * False Compromise
   * False Dichotomy
   * False Dilemma
   * False Positioning
   * Gibberish
   * Impugning Motives
   * LAME claim
   * Misuse of Information
   * Moral Equivalence
   * Moving the Goalposts
   * Naturalistic Fallacy
   * Non Sequitur
   * Observational Selection
   * Personal Abuse
   * Poisoning the Well
   * Popular Opinion
   * Reductio Ad Absurdum
   * Sanctimony
   * Self Defeating Argument
   * Simple-Minded Certitude
   * Single Cause
   * Slippery Slope
   * Special Pleading
   * Stacking the Deck
   * Unfounded Generalization
   * Weasel Words

There is little difference between this site and Fallacy Files. It is an excellent resource, specifically designed to remove the esoteric language used to describe fallacies and put them in lay terms.

Also, if you will allow me, I'll add links to: http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/categories/37-Fallacy-of-the-Week and http://thenonsequitur.com/, and http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm, which have a similar purpose - dealing with fallacies.

Regards - Theo Clark (Humbug! Online).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo Clark (talk • contribs) 05:05, April 6, 2006

Hello, Mr Clark. In my opinion the link to your web site [1] does not seem particularly useful. For obvious reasons, we try to limit links to web sites with commercial interests. For example we don't want people adding links as a way of advertising or promoting some product, or trying to generate hits for their web sites, to increase their ad revenue. I'm sure you understand. Paul August ☎ 16:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul,

You say, "In my opinion…". Could you please elaborate on that somewhat? (Given you are clearly interested in fallacies, I'm sure you'd agree opinions without justification lack merit.) I see no significant difference between Humbug Online and The Fallacy Files, or the other sites I've added. They are all useful sites apropos to deepening one's understanding of informal fallacies and using an understanding of fallacious reasoning in everyday situations.

Yes, a website about fallacies, linked to from the wikipedia entry on fallacies will get a few hits from it… I'm not too sure as to your point here? That is the point isn't it? Surely this means wikipedia is a useful research tool - it's point?

As far as the commercial interests goes, the link to the book leads offsite, and more importantly, there is substantially more content on the blog (now, as it keeps being added to) than in the book. And surely wikipedia users are entitled to make up their own minds? (I am aware of spam issues, and blatant attempts of commercialisation, but I'd assume you, having had a good look at the blog so you were able to make an informed decision, would realise my genuine interest in fallacious thinking given the frequency and the detail of posts.)

I've added some of the above to a discussion about this Talk:Logical_fallacy#Links, so I would appreciate it if a few editors made this decision, not just one - otherwise it seems somewhat arbitrary.

Regards,

Theo Clark 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theo. I think taking this issue to the talk page is the right thing to do. As you say it is not just my decision ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul, and I am genuinely motivated by the need for more "critical thinkers" out there (I'm a Science Teacher), which is what got me into fallacies in the 1st place. Theo Clark 17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Your desire to improve critical thinking is a noble one. There are lots of opportunities for that here ;-) I wish you all the best. Paul August ☎ 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the intention behind your moving section Relationships to after Da Vinci's achievements, this has introduced a small problem, namely that Melzi and Salai(no) appear in the text without having been introduced; in particular the significance of "Salai was not forgotten" is unclear. Perhaps you can think of a way of addressing this. By the way, I don't understand the sudden shift from "Salaino" to "Salai". Articles in other languages that mention the character at all appear to only use "Salai", without mention that this is a nickname. The online Italian dictionaries that I consulted don't have an entry for "salai(no)". Lambiam^Talk 12:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lambian. Yes I see the problem. My edit was simply to revert the previous anon's edit. Looking back in the edit history, I now see that Haiduc had just the day before re-ordered things — which is a good idea — but can't be accomplished as easily as just moving the sections, as you point out. We will have to fix that. I haven't got time to try to fix things myself at moment (perhaps you could ask Haiduc to help?) Also I have no immediate answer to the Salai/Salaino question you raise, but I will have a look later. You could also ask Aldux he is Italian and an Italian History scholar, he might know the answer to this, or of course raise the question on the talk page. Regards Paul August ☎ 17:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, nice to hear you :-) It's all okay here, and I'm happy to hear you're returning to Monterosso. As for the help I gave to Lambiam, that was a pleasure. Ciao! --Aldux 14:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rabid_xmas_dog.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 13:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that in your sandbox User:Paul_August/Sandbox you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:PlanetMath sourced articles and Category:Mathematical logic. Could I suggest that you deactivate them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it.".) Cheers, Ziggurat 23:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed this, thanks. Paul August ☎ 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, it appears that Attalus I is going to be on the main page. She's walking down the aisle at last. (April 25, 2006.) Congratulations. Geogre 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Having become resigned to being ever the bridesmaid, she is again nervous. She now expects someone will point out that, in fact, she is no lady for the altar, but rather an old whore deserving to be FARCed. I suppose I must now stand vigil the night before seeking expiation for our sins? Paul August ☎ 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In true ancient fashion, I suspect that the sheets will be a gory display for all after all the visitors to the featured article on the main page decide to alter things here and there. (More and my metaphor would be unDonne.) Geogre 03:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While my beloved was losing her maidenhead, I was in an ancient Calabrian hill town (senza internet) so I missed the live proceedings. But I've since seen the videotape and it was most gory. Paul August ☎ 14:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whore or not, she was very moved by the attention. —Encephalon 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes she was moved ... to ATTALUS OF PERGAMOM and back again! Paul August ☎ 14:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paul, it was such a pleasure seeing Attalus I on the main page. It's deserved a spot forever. Here's to more of your contribs being mainpaged.:-) Cheers —Encephalon 13:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Paul August ☎ 14:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following has been copied to Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems#PCE's doubts, if you wish to add to this discussion please do so there. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 12:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proof which I reproduced and referenced on the page is published in print as well as online at many, many websites so I doubt there would be a copyright violation if the proof were published here. I just have not had time to see if it is already published in the Wikipedia but may have time later. The purpose for including the text of the proof in the body of the article is simply to make it easier for the reader to follow the refutation. Although not as easy to follow I have included a link to an external website where the proof is published and I will not revert your deletion of the proof on the body of the article unless or until a Wikipedia reproduction is found.

The refutation however is not copyrighted and is submitted in accordance with the GFDL -- PCE

Hello. The proof outline you inserted is copied verbatim from Infinity and the Mind by Rudy Rucker, which is copyrighted text, publishing it in Wikipedia could be a copyright violation. Your "refutation" is an apparent violation of WP:NOR. Paul August ☎ 13:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Message From: "Rudy Rucker" <rudy@rudyrucker.com> To: "Honesty is the BEST policy." <pce3@ij.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: Re: Permission to reproduce Godel Incompleteness Theorem proof

I don't mind if you quote this page; I think it's all over the web anyway. Do look at a printed copy of the book and make sure you've quoted it accurately, as typos may have crept in.

I also notice you say you want to "refute" the theorem. I am absolutely certain that your refutation will be fallacious. You have no idea how many people have written me over the years with incorrect refutations! One thing to keep in mind is that my passage is only a suggestive summary of the argument, which is a bit more refined. When you have the entry up, send me a link, so I can add a comment defending myself and Godel, should I have the inclination and the time.

Thanks for your interest in my work,

Rudy R.

At 02:34 AM 5/3/2006, you wrote: >Hi Rudy, > >I would like to ask your permission to reproduce >the following excerpt from your book: Infinity >and the Mind. under the GNU license at the >Wikipedia site: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_L icense >so that it will be easier for readers to follow >a discussion of the proof's refutation. If this >is okay please reply and if not then I will >simply rely upon an external link to a site where it can be found. > >Thanks,

-- PCE 02:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

see User_talk:Trovatore#Godel and User_talk:Aleph4#Your_reversion_of_G.C3.B6del for other places this discussion is taking place (might be nice if all three discussions were moved to the talk page). -lethe ^{talk +} 02:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to carry out a conversation about your refutations of an author's work. Your refutation is original research, and so is not allowed. If you want to get comments on why your refutation is wrong, we'd be happy to help you at Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Mathematics. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In regard to the WP:NOR it appears that in terms of items 1,2,4,5 you may very well be right so I will exclude my refutation until such time as I can meet items 7 using a "reputable" publication or item 5 using something other than the validity of the refutation itself. -- PCE 03:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good. Paul August ☎ 12:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

([2]) When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added.

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should really floss more often as well. Paul August ☎ 02:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. Eagle talk 03:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I am quite familiar with the various warning templates, and their usage. But I often don't add them to the editors talk page. It depends on how much time I want to devote to such activities. Paul August ☎ 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are correct that there are sources for this article, which on its face suggests that it is not OR. However, note that all of the references are by the editor who created the page. This is what struck me as being OR about it, although technically you are correct. Well, I guess this thing will find its way to AfD and I suspect I know what its fate will be...:) -- Deville (Talk) 19:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exclusive_disjunction#How_did_this_get_called_.22Exclusive_Disjunction.22.3F

Let's discuss which term is better!!QQ 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QQ, thanks for the invitation to talk I've replied on Talk:Exclusive disjunction. Paul August ☎ 16:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheffer_stroke#Name_Change_:_Sheffer_Stroke_.E2.86.92_Logical_NAND

if you think "Sheffer Stroke" is less common than "Logical NAND"??QQ 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QQ, I'll take a look when I get a change. Paul August ☎ 17:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think moving Sheffer Stroke to Logical NAND is not possible, by wikipedia's historical reason...QQ 18:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Negation

Could you please talk about it in the above link??

In my opinion, if you think moving article EACH TIME requires discussion, you should talk to the committee of wikipedia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by QQ (talk • contribs) 17:52, May 28, 2006

I've given my thoughts on the merits of the move on Talk:negation.

As for whether moving a page requires discussion or not, the simple answer is no not always, moving pages which are likely to be non-controversial, like simple misspellings etc. usually don't require any discussion. However for other moves (like the move of negation), it is always best to start a discussion on the talk page first.

Paul August ☎ 18:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul,

The transliterations "Suslin" and "Souslin" are both frequently seen, though I think I see "Suslin" a bit more often. We don't seem to have a bio on him; that would be a nice addition (can't find too much on Google). --Trovatore 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I believe it is prononced something like "Soosleen" which favors the spelling "Souslin". But I think "Suslin" is much more common, on Wikipedia at least, and yes a Suslin article would be good. Paul August ☎ 05:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul. I have to say something about article. Before about 2 or 3days ago, I saw that my edit was reverted by you. I mean I tell about this[3] . That means you reverted my edits. I just changed Understand and describing change into Understand and Describing Change. I don't know why you reverted back to last version. You considered this is vandalism. But, I didn't attempt to vandalize the article. Anyways. Leave me message on my discussion's page No.64. Ok? Daniel5127, 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. Yes I reverted your edit to mathematics. I didn't necessarily consider your edit to be vandalism, but I did consider the capitalization of "Describing Change" as inappropriate. It would have been better if I had written an edit summary explaining this, I don't actually recall my revert, but I'm afraid I was probably just being lazy. I'm sorry and I apologize if you felt you were wrongly being accused of vandalism. Paul August ☎ 05:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I accept your apology. But It is key concept. Because someone already mentioned that. Basically, it is key concept like Understand and describing into Understand and Describing. Anyways, Thanks for providing the evidence that you reverted back to last version. Reply on my talk page. Daniel5127, 05:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to present justifications for each of those changes, but sincerely hope you and Hillman might simply accept them as reasonable so that I don't need to waste more hours on this. There is one additional change that I think is fair: to substitute "non-mainstream" for the pejorative, value laden term "fringe."

Otherwise I think we have come to an entry that is accurate and fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haisch (talk • contribs) 16:47, June 11, 2006

Hi Bernard. I will reply at Talk:Bernard Haisch. By the way, as a courtesy to other editors, can you please "sign" your talk page posts by typing four tilde's "~~~~"? The software (under the default settings) will replace the four tildes with your username, together with a time and date stamp (like the one following my post here). Regards — Paul August ☎ 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul, could you please use this version for your comparision? Presently your section in Haisch's user talk page makes it look like I simply reverted the version by Haisch, which is not true. You might also see my user talk page, since I think that if you look into this, I have in fact been highly responsive to Haisch's concerns, I just don't think he should be allowed to write his own profile here. Therefore, I think the version I cited above should be the basis for your revised revision. Also, could you explain in Talk:Bernard Haisch what you did after your new revision? TIA ---CH 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. The link you provided above for "this version" points to a previous version of Talk:Bernard Haisch, so I'm not sure what you mean by "use" it for comparison. The two versions of Bernard Haisch I compared were: 02:00, June 11, 2006 Hillman, which was the version created by your most recent edit, and 04:50, June 11, 2006 Paul August, which was the version created by my most recent edit (with Haisch making this edit in between). My intent was to compare the differences between your last version (which I assumed corresponded to a version with which you were reasonably content) and the current version (with which Haisch seems reasonably content) to try to produce a version we can all live with. If there is some better version to compare, please prode the link, or the date and time stamp. Thanks.

I didn't think I wrote anything that implied that you had revereted, and upon rereading it, I can't see what you are refering to, can you point me to any language that seems to imply that? Anyway I didn't intend that and I apologise if I somehow left that impression. Nor was that section meant to be any sort of criticism of you (or anyone for that matter). I would be happy to rephrase anything I wrote there to make it more clear.

As for your request for me to explain what I did. Do you mean what edits I made? Here is a diff of all my edits following Haisch's edit: [4] As you can see they were all minor copyedits. If you want me to explain any of them (or anything else) I'd be happy to ;-)

About the article itself, I have no strong feelings about any of the differences between your version and Haisch's version. I just think it would be helpful to discuss the differences on the talk page and see if we can't come up with something which is acceptable to all of us. I have been following this discussion for awhile, and I though I see if I could help out. I hope I can ;-)

Paul August ☎ 23:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate your continued involvement in getting this article to be factual and unbiased. Christine keeps letting her bias show through and does not even see it (see the latest on the Bernard Haisch article talk page). Haisch 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to stay involved for awhile at least. I think I understand your concerns and I'm prepared to try to address them on the talk page of that article. For now I would prefer if we all could discuss any substantive changes on the talk page first before editing the article. To that end I have reverted your last edit for now, I hope you don't mind. Please join the point-by-point discussion on Talk:Bernard Haisch. By the way if you have any wiki-related questions I'd be happy to try and answer them. Paul August ☎ 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do we do this? Would you mind terribly making an updated list of the differences so that we have a current point of reference. I feel really lost and overwhelmed by this discussion scattered across many pages. Actually, Paul, I really do think the kind and ethical thing would be to work backwards from my version. It is my reputation that has been attacked and here I am fighting an uphill battle. I am really beginning to see the dark side of Wikipedia. Please do consider re-reverting to mine to work down from that... please. Haisch 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on an updated list of differences when I saw your post above. As for starting with your version and working from there, I've already proposed that but without much success, but I will see what I can do. I'm hopeful we can work things out on the talk page there. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for your intervention. But what gives Christine Hillman the right to set the terms? You have as much right as she does. And what about my rights? Now that I see this process up close, I can begin to appreciate those who were tainted as "commies" by McCarthy. That's how I see her fixation on the obviously biased term "fringe." Have you seen "Good Night and Good Luck?" Haisch 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Chris doesn't get to "set the terms", we all (including you) set the terms by consensus, so I have to consider Chris's concerns as well as yours. As I said I will see what I can do. If you feel strongly enough you can revert back to "your version", I won't revert again, but someone else might, in which case you could revert again … but see Wikipedia:Edit war and WP:3RR. However I strongly urge you to please give the discussion on the talk page a chance for at least a day or so, to see if any progress can be made there. The article has already changed significantly based upon the points you have raised so far. I am confident that that process can continue.

By the way, I know in a case like this, when you think your reputation is being attacked, it can be difficult to remain civil (which by the way I think you have done for the most part). In particular though, please try not to make this about the individual editors involved (see WP:AGF and WP:NPA), whether accurate or not, negative characterizations of fellow editors or assumptions concerning their motives are unproductive.

Paul August ☎ 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will await your updated list of differences on the talk page of the article, and then give my reasons for each one. Thanks for your efforts. It is genuinely appreciated. Haisch 18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any objection to my putting up a "disputed notice" on the article page until these issues are resolved?69.107.150.126 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Thought I was logged in but I wasn't.Haisch 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that. That is probably a good idea. Paul August ☎ 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and welcome to you too! -Dan 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Paul, I don't think anyone can discuss anything with Haisch until he calms down and agrees to play by our rules WP:CIV-WP:AGF. I think I have bent over backwards to be helpful to him as a newbie but his childish insults are beginning to grow tiresome. Please note that I have urged him several times to review our policies for talk page behavior.

I made a good regarding the version of Bernard Haisch I cited in my previous message. This would be too confusing to try to explain, so let's start again.

I have reverted to my most recent version and am willing to discuss line by line, but only after Haisch has taken a few days to calm down. I don't think the differences between my version and his are really that huge, but I resist the idea that he should be given license to rewrite his own wikibiography in his own words, since I think this compromises WP:NPOV.

In the service of our readers, I think it is important that our articles should strive to be readable as well as fair and factually accurate, and that is why I think it is best that I implement any changes the WP community feels are neccessary in Bernard Haisch: comparing his versions and mine I think it is obvious that I am the better writer, at least on this subject, and since I wrote the original version I also can more easily see where to fit in new material in a way which respects the flow of ideas.

Just to be clear: do you disagree with the principle that the subject of a wikibiography should be discouraged from himself writing or rewriting his own wikibiography? Please note that everyone appears to agree that the subject can contribute on the talk page to express concerns, suggest factual corrections, or describe changes he desires. However, as I say, I think it is best if more neutral editors make any changes to the article itself. ---CH 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. I have no major disagreements with the guidelines set down in WP:AUTO. But I don't think we should prohibit an editor from making any edits at all. At any rate I have some concerns of my own about the Bernard Haisch article, as expressed on Talk:Bernard Haisch. Can you please respond to my talk page posts there? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I specifically said that I don't deny Haisch the right to suggest changes in the talk page. And of course he has the right to make edits to articles on topics which are not controversial or in which he is not directly invovled. I am saying that it would be best if he confine his participation regarding his own wikibio to the talk page, however. Hope this is clear now.---CH 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant any edits at all to Bernard Haisch. Anyway I don't think we really disagree about this. I'm perfectly happy to ask and encourage Haisch to refrain from editing that article, and as you suggest, instead make suggestions for changes on the talk page. However at the moment I'm really more concerned about the changes that I want to make to the article. Can you tell me why you have reverted the changes that I made to the article? Did you read my comments posted on the talk page first? Paul August ☎ 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, please help. Hillman has taken down the Disputation banner. That should certainly be my right to display. This is inappropriate behaviour on Hillman's part.Haisch 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's back now, and Chris has also added your postdoc info, so let's see what developes. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responed to the latest version. I think we are converging at last. Thanks. Haisch 19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you are welcome. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I have again replied.Haisch 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Paul, long time. Noticing your copyedit to Belton House, I got worried that I might have somehow overwritten your changes, when I saved my Footnote Frenzy edit, because in fact there isn't anything different between here (mine) and here (yours) (bar only a shortened paragraph space or something). I didn't get an edit conflict, but sometimes one mysteriously fails to, and the server was altogether blowing hot and cold yesterday. Alternatively, I suppose you might have been working in a text editor and inadvertently saved The Wrong Version or something. Anyway, I just thought you might want to check it out. Best, Bishonen | talk 09:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hey yourself Bish. No you didn't overwrite my edits. They were just so tiny that you couldn't see them! I removed an extraneous period following "<ref>Nicolson, 148.</ref>" (note number 1), and an extra space before <ref>Nicolson, 148.</ref>" (note number 5). Just the kind of edits I'm good at. Mostly I just wanted to applaud your edit, since I think it is bad practice to mix notes with references. I'm afraid the "<ref>" tag is misnamed. Double best, Paul August ☎ 14:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I got an email from Fil, he seems to be much improved health wise.[reply]

Fil's better? That's so great! :-) Bishonen | talk 14:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hiya Paul,

There's currently some renewed discussion about whether and how to set up [a] US wikimedia chapter[s]. Among other things this could help better organize meetups, gatherings at large events and cons, and local outreach. I'm notifying people who have been actively involved in local meetups; if you are interested, there is a quiet mailing-list and a meta-page on the topic... both of which could use input and ideas. +sj + 17:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for your intervention.

Could you clarify the issue regarding Hillman's proper name. I believe I am using her correct name.

All necessary biographical information on me is available at CV. With regard to your suggestion that "as much as you think Chris' behaviour has been inappropriate, I think saying so is probably unhelpful" that is part of the problem. No one should be expected to sit back and be passive when one's carrer is being inappropriately misconstrued. I have tried and will continue to be civil, and indeed appreciative for assistance from you. But I maintain that Hillman has shown enough bias to warrant ceasing further involvement with my entry. But once again, thank you.Haisch 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, have a look at the Discussion page of the Journal of Scientific Exploration by others than me and you will see further evidence of NPOV violation by Hillman.Haisch 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again you are welcome. As far as I know Hillman is this person, and is a "he". In any case Hilman goes by "Chris". Paul August ☎ 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that I am this mysterious entity, and that I generally go by "Chris" :-/ ---CH 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my good friend Larry Sanger created a Frankenstein when he set up this anonymous editing. You see, my career is totally out in the open and it would be really nice if Wikipedians were not allowed to be so shadowy (note that I did not say shady, a different connotation). I would prefer to deal with people whose identity I actually know, as all of you know mine. There is an unfair asymmetry here. As for the Hillman nomenclature, Chris apparently made the same transition one of my best friends made, but my friend did everything in the open and managed to continue a highly successful career in astrophysics in her new persona, which I greatly admired. There was no attempt to become "this mysterious entity." Haisch 05:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to edit your words, but the nickname for Humphrey Bogart is "Bogie", not "Boogie". Makes a difference!  :-) --KSmrq^T 13:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes quite! ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short and criptic. ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. ;-p Fixed now. I'll deal with the bot later... Misza13 ^{T C} 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some experience with unruly bots. It's tragic: When Bots Go Bad. — Paul August ☎ 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]