Jump to content

User talk:Paul August

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aldrasto11 (talk | contribs) at 11:03, 16 June 2016 (→‎Hathitrust: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm sorry, you have reached an imaginary number. If you require a real number please rotate your telephone by ± 90° and try again.

Archives

Individual archives: Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end


Last change

Hi, you may not have noticed, but your recent contributions have changed some parts of the text. If that was not your intention, do not worry, I proceeded to restore the item. I'll note that the change of content must be justified in the talk page of the article and hopefully you have a good intention, otherwise your actions will be considered vandalism. Thank you. (Slurpy121 (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Huh? Paul was reverting your removal of content without an edit summary or discussion on the talk page of Classical republic. You might want to be a bit more careful about tossing around the term vandalism and remember to remain logged in when editing: editing the same page from an account and an IP within a matter of minutes, and warning your own IP about its edits, looks a lot like a concerted effort at WP:SOCKPUPPETRY.  davidiad.:τ 02:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I would like to talk to you sometime about the subject. (Slurpy121 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
You may not remove other people's comments from talk pages, as you did to mine here.  davidiad.:τ 03:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labours of Hercules

Indeed

Well, I'm always aware of your presence, as I become less vigilant regarding mythology articles when you're around. I don't know what to do about the recent string of infantile but not-quite-vandalistic edits at Labours of Hercules that occurred over the holiday season. There have been several intervening valid edits that may be tedious to reconstruct. When I noticed it last night, I threw up my hands in despair and moved on. Thoughts? Really, the whole article needs an overhaul. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... needs an overhaul ... yes, like many others. But we can't do everything. And I'm an old curmudgeon who only does what he wants ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..... and it turns out (apparently) that what I wanted to do was something like this. Not an overhaul but ... Paul August ☎ 21:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

See User talk:Moonriddengirl#User Mondigomo and massive copyvio -some editor here have been involved in some of the articles this editor has left full of copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. I'll see what I can do. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's now properly organised at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mondigomo. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factorization Page Changes

Today you justly deleted my edit on the "Factorization" page, but would you put my information back on with proper LATEX? This was my first wikipedia post and I was not sure how to format it, but the math is sound. thank you, Fragershroom (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fragershroom, and welcome. Sorry I had to delete your contribution. I will take a look and see what I can do. Regards, Paul August ☎ 11:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to let you know that the LaTeX issues are fixed, and you do not need to worry about fixing the page.If you want to check the math, go ahead. Thank you, Fragershroom (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

    • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
    • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
    • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
    • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
  • If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questia email success: Codes resent

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi t | c 21:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Lost edit

The edits to which you are referring look good to me. Happy editing!Jpcohen (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm saying that the edits that you made, removing these article adjectives look good to me. Sorry for the lack of clarity.Jpcohen (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then I'll re do my undo. Paul August ☎ 01:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gone?

Uncertain access? Does that mean I'll have to pay closer attention to mythology articles? Bleah. I hope you're going somewhere romantically remote and even better tropical (it's -14° C. where I am at the moment). Bon voyage! Cynwolfe (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain, but not apparently non-existant. As always you need to attend to whatever strikes your fancy. Yes, tropical, romantic and remote. As I seem to have better access than I might have had, I will probably be in and out. See you around. Paul August ☎ 14:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of Lagrange

Hallo Paul,
I reverted again your edit on the Lagrange article. In the manual of style of biographies there is a guideline (WP:OPENPARA) which specifies which nationality should be mentioned in the first paragraph of an article. It is quite clear and, in the case of Lagrange, it is also indisputable that his notability was reached when he was in Turin. If you don't agree with the guideline (which of course is not perfect, but in my opinion has the advantage to stop a lot of the nationalistic edit wars which plague wikipedia), please go on the related talk page and discuss there, but please understand that as long as a guideline is there, it should be followed. Talking about my fellow citizens, Fermi, Segrè and Bruno Rossi became 100% Italians, while Giacconi and Viterbi are now 100% Yankees. Of, course, starting with the second paragraph you can write all what you want. :-) Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok if you insist, I won't argue (but I don't think I read the guideline quite like you do, and note for example that Britannica describes Lagrange as an "Italian French mathematician"). Paul August ☎ 12:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The GL says:"...or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." I think that it is clear, and in our case, notability was reached for sure not in France (most of his most important contributions were accomplished while he was in Germany). It is also quite evident for me that Lagrange was an Italian mathematician who later became French (BTW, asking Napoleon to annex its homeland - Piedmont - into the French Empire: so to say, he moved into France bringing his own country :-) ), and we can write it after the first sentence. Alex2006 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the sentence you quote starts off with "In most modern-day cases this will mean" (italics added for emphasis), and in any case WP:OPENPARA is only a guideline. My view is that Lagrange is considered to be both Italian and French, and Wikipedia should not choose one over the other. Paul August ☎ 12:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the end of this thread regarding Enrico Fermi, another famous Italian/something-else scientist (if you have time, you can read the whole thread :-)). About being "only" a guideline, I think that guidelines can be discussed, but as long as they are in force cannot be ignored. Alex2006 (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eros

I may've just done bad things at Eros. I've been working on Cupid, and thought I was going to be working on it tonight because my Valentine was on deadline for a project. Turns out he finished early, and I may not get to finish what I intended. Anyway, when I was reviewing Eros I noticed that the section on his nature as a primordial god was completely missing, and the other background section as well. I don't see anything hideously misleading in those sections, and they're better than nothing, so went back to a version that had them. I did this in haste, but it seemed as if little or no real editing had been done in the meantime … mainly just vandalistic deletion and reversion. Since I know you watch the page, just thought I'd mention it, in case I screwed something up. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look good. Paul August ☎ 22:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Rfkjnfjnj

why aren't you letting me spit on Plato's grave? my addition was totally awesome and lots of people think itRfkjnfjnj (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)why dont u find the sources hunty xoxoxoxox <3[reply]

? Paul August ☎ 21:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Paul August; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moron

get a life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.251.254 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hi Paul, did you want the sources for Greek Tragedy? If so, shoot me an email, I've nuked my old email, so I don't have your address anymore.  davidiad { t } 02:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I was really hoping that there might be a link you could post that would give all of us access to them, but I'm guessing not? I doubt that I will be able to do much with them on my own. But I will send you an email. On a related minor note, what do you think of the title of this article: Herakles' Children? I suspect that either "'Heracleidae'" or "The Children of Heracles'" would be better titles. Paul August ☎ 13:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ... I'm just not comfortable with posting entire books online. I've sent some already and will sent some more in a bit. I understand not having the Wikienergy to undertake a big cleanup right now. As for the title: I think the person who wrote the original article must have had the one translation listed there that uses Herakles' Children as title. The two titles you're used to are also the only two I'm used to. I think Heracleidae is actually more common, but my view might be skewed because I only read specialist literature. In my opinion patronymics shouldn't be translated, but my Wikipedia rule of thumb for this issue has been to go with whatever the Loeb series has done recently ... in this case Children of Heracles. So, yeah, I agree with you that it would be better moved and I'd support either headword.  davidiad { t } 15:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divine Comedy navbox

I see you have been an active editor at Divine Comedy. Would you take a look at Template:Divine Comedy navbox?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Since you keep deleting all my edits. Like when i put in that Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon Defeated the titans. You deleted it because your trying to delete all my edits. You must know me some how. Your a stalker. Your harrasing me. Now i will return the favor. Since you like to deltete all my edits. I am do right now delete everything you have ever put in now. Have a great day.

Ok

Since you keep deleting all my edits. Like when i put in that Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon Defeated the titans. You deleted it because your trying to delete all my edits. You must know me some how. Your a stalker. Your harrasing me. Now i will return the favor. Since you like to deltete all my edits. I am do right now delete everything you have ever put in now. Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.186.167 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

another thing i just did. I just delted 5 of your edits on different pages right now. Tomorrow 10 more. I just deleted everything you put in on the Cepheus King of Tegea page. You try to restore it. I will delete again because I can. Stop deleting my edits on the Cyclopes page. Everythiong I put in is fact. Keep deleting my information. I will delete everything you ever put in. Have a good day. Moron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.186.167 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DarkSleach, I'm sorry that you feel that you've been mistreated. What do you want me to do? Even if I "stop deleting" your edits on the Cyclops page, I can't stop other editor's from doing so. Notice that many of your edits to that page, including your last one, have been undone by several other editors besides me. If you keep doing what you've been doing you will probably end up being blocked or banned see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. There are other ways to try to resolve this problem see WP:DISPUTE. I'm willing to discuss any of this with you. Regards Paul August ☎ 11:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Eagle (Roman military standard)#Second survey

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eagle (Roman military standard)#Second survey. —Sowlos 09:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Leibniz on energy

Hi Paul, concerning the recent edits at Leibniz, the relevant reference seems to be Ariew and Garber. There are two mentions of kinetic energy on the page. The first one is not relevant, as you pointed out in your message summary. The second one seems to bear out the claim on Leibniz and kinetic energy, and provides the reference to Ariew and Garber. Tkuvho (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tkuvho. Thomas Kuhn the famous physicist, historian and philosopher of science wrote an article titled "Energy Conservation as an Example of Simultaneous Discovery" in which he lists twelve possible candidates for the title of the discoverer of conservation of energy none of whom were Libnitz (see [1]). See also Helmholtz and the British scientific elite: From force conservation to energy conservation. I'm curious what Ariew and Garber have to say exactly. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly one is talking about different conservation laws. What you possibly have in mind is the conservation of the sum potential+kinetic. What Leibniz was referring to was the conservation of total kinetic energy (no gravity) in a system of, say, elastic balls. Tkuvho (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I followed your link on Kuhn, and then followed their link on "conservation of energy". Their historical section states: "History. The principle of the conservation of energy has a long and elaborate history, stemming from the 1670s theory of vis viva or “living force” of German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, to debates on the caloric theory, etc." So in a way this supports the claim on Leibniz. Tkuvho (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this supports what our articles on Liebnitz and conservation of energy say, but not what the IP wanted our article on Liebnitz to say, namely that Liebnitz was the discoverer of the conservation of energy. Paul August ☎ 18:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to mention in the introduction that Leibniz discovered the law of conservation of vis viva a.k.a. kinetic energy? The sources seem to be in agreement on this. Tkuvho (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no "law of conservation of kinetic energy" (doesn't work for inelastic collisions, as you point out above). So to be accurate you'd have to say something like "Leibniz discovered that for elastic collisions, kinetic energy was conserved". That is probably accurate, but that leaves the question of whether it is important enough to be mentioned in the lead? I don't know. Paul August ☎ 12:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your conclusion. I just thought such a discussion is a more constructive approach to the issue than the series of mutual reverts at Leibniz. Would it be OK to copy this thread to the Talk:Leibniz so the IP has a chance to respond? Tkuvho (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and yes discussion is best. Paul August ☎ 17:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This could be copied to Talk:Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz rather than the talkpage of the redirect. Tkuvho (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was checking to see if this discussion had ever been copied over, and I mistakenly looked at the wrong talk page and copied it there. But I see that you apparently copied this discussing already so I've simple undone my recent copy. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xena of Amphipolis

Please refer to the writings of Dasopholios before deselecting the resource link of Xena of Amphipolis as valid? Thanks in advance I will send on my research papers FYI. David Greene PHD @ Harvard. 65.175.179.93 (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Thanks for the note. Any source you can provide would be helpful. Who is Dasopholios? I can find nothing on anyone by that name. Paul August ☎ 11:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kabeirides

Hi Paul, saw your edit summary at Hephaestus. I agree with your removal, but since you ask who that Kabeirides is ... The Kabeirides are a trio of obscure nymphs who were either the sisters (Pherecydes) or consorts (Acusilaus) of the Kabeiroi—both cited by Strabo 10.3.21. Residue of this info shows up in Stephanus, too. That's the entirety of what antiquity has to say about them.  davidiad { t } 01:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question was mostly rhetorical, but thanks. Paul August ☎ 10:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I sure as hell had no idea who they were.  davidiad { t } 11:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
;-) Paul August ☎ 12:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. Perhaps in the same vein, any thoughts on "Xena of Amphipolis" see immediately above and recent edits to Amphipolis. In particular do you know who "Dasopholios" might be? Paul August ☎ 12:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but didn't want to comment since I'd just have been a jerk to the IP-editor: you're a lot better at assuming good faith than I am. Dasopholios has enough of a veneer of plausibility on it that it could be imagined as a single fragment historian in Mueller or something, but it ain't an actual Greek name.  davidiad { t } 17:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving my Pergamon edits!

I was in the middle of trying to improve Pergamon when I was interrupted by a small person needing tutoring. What a lovely surprise to find that the cites had already been cleaned up while I was busy!Mellsworthy (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Your edits have improved the article. And more could be done. Regards. Paul August ☎ 10:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cerberus

Good catch at Cerberus. I half revert far too often.  davidiad { t } 01:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I make similar mistakes. Paul August ☎ 13:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message

How can I put a message to you, christian? If we are talking about a God, it should be in capital letter, right? Southamerican (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. In polytheistic contexts "god" and "goddess" are not capitalized. Paul August ☎ 01:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Day Paul August

Wishing Paul August a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Vatsan34 (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Paul, I just mentioned at 3RRN that I agree with your edits on Mythology. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Paul August ☎ 00:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pandia

Sorry I disappeared, Paul. Real real world stuff on my end. The article looks great.  davidiad { t } 06:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, and thanks. Paul August ☎ 19:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 570595462 by Sluffs (talk) the last edit changed the meaning

You reverted an edit I did on the article: Muslim

I changed: "who begets not nor was begotten" to "who begets but was not begotten"

and you reverted the edit on the basis that it changed the meaning. How does it change the meaning? This is basic "first cause" stuff. Both mean without creation, boundless, eternal - the first cause from which all emanates. Also "not nor" is just not working. It makes the reader pause to think why "not" meaning "in no way" and "nor" meaning "in no way" are together

e.g. I will not fight with other editors or Nor will I fight with other editors.

Look it up in a dictionary. I should say not nor look it up in a dictionary unless you wish to find out.

who begets but was not begotten = he who creates but was not created

begotten is the past participle of beget - beget means "To cause to exist or occur". So change to past participle: "was caused to exist or occur" then add "not" and hey presto:

"was not caused to exist or occur" in other words "he who is the cause of existence but himself was not caused to exist"

I'm going to revert your edit.

Sluffs (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the correct meaning is the one you've changed it to — what is the source for this? But the meaning of "begets not nor was begotten" is "does not beget and was not begotten". That is of course different than what you've written. Regards Paul August ☎ 11:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just interested in writing clear articles. Thanks

Sluffs (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you are interested in writing correct articles as well, what is the source for the change in meaning you've made? Paul August ☎ 12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it the confusion may be caused by the mixed tense. Past Perfect (whoops I mean Present Perfect) for the first clause of the sentence and Past Participle for the second clause of the sentence. Who begets = Who causes to exist - do we exist now? - yes - why do we exist? - because we have been created - hold on I was born in the 1990s and I had no existence 30,000 years ago - yes that is true because creation is still going on. That is why the Present Perfect is used - something that started in the past and is (or may be) still going on. Then we have the Past Participle for the second clause - if the creator exists then to even ponder if he was created or not is Past tense.

So the sentence stands. BTW I've given you definitions and tenses so its your responsibility to offer alternative definitions and tenses that justify the inclusion of the words you wish to see in the article. I've gone as far as I can to explain the grammar changes. Justify your sentence - I've justified mine.

Sluffs (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was written before (perhaps incorrectly) was "begets not" followed by the phrase "nor was begotten". The first phrase "begets not" is the negative of "begets" i.e. "does not beget". you've reversed that meaning to "does beget" No need to talk about tenses. Paul August ☎ 13:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. My mistake I thought beget was being used in a "caused to exist or occur" sense and that the "not nor" was being applied to the second clause - still unusual to have "in no way in no way" "begets in no way in no way begotten" - oh well. Since this is the translation given on Islamic sites and I thought I was correcting a grammatical mistake not the meaning I humbly apologize for my mistake.

Sluffs (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Paul August ☎ 16:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on the articles Talk Page about the Tafsir al-Jalalayn interpretation. Its a choice of using the Sahih International version as given by Wiqi55 which is a transliteration for English readers or using the more expansive interpretation of the Tafsir al-Jalalayn:

He neither begot, for no likeness of Him can exist, nor was begotten, since createdness is precluded in His case.

I like the above because of the inclusion of "was". If we reduce it to bring it closer to the Sahih International version: He neither begot nor was begotten. That might be better than "he neither begets nor is born".

The Tafsir al-Jalalayn is from 1459 and is still used. What do you think?

Sluffs (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For flow "nether begets nor was begotten" seems good to me. Perhaps you can find a common published translation of the phrase and use that, with quotes. Paul August ☎ 19:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is good idea - "begets" is Present Perfect and the inflected form "begotten" covers Past Participle. Please note that I did keep saying Past Present - its Present Perfect for something that happened in the past and is (or may be) still be going on.

So "neither begets nor was begotten" may be the one.

Sluffs (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had better stick with the Tafsir al-Jalalayn version which uses begot and begotten. If Islamic scholars are happy with it - who am I to argue. Anyway it does seem to refute the belief in the Son of God and also that we are created in his likeness. So maybe it is saying "no! God didn't have a son and you were not created in his image" which would require the use of begot as given by the Tafsir al-Jalalayn.

Sluffs (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a waffle. Yep. Its "neither begets nor was begotten" - which states that no organic or inorganic object can be born or originate from him (Jesus, you, your cat, the images of him at the Sistine Chapel) because he is perfect and transcends representation or divisibility (the trinity is described as three parts of the same being) and that nothing was the cause of him (absolute, alone, one, unique). I'll go and change it now. Sorry about wasting your time while I worked out the "not nor" issue which actually was probably just a missing comma in the correct transliteration.

Sluffs (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paean (god)

The article redirects from Paeon and specifically has the designation (god) after it, not epithet. The article is titled Paean and yet Paeon is used for the majority of the article, even as the epithet, which you cited as being the primary use of the spelling Paean. The primary citation on the spelling being Paeon is copy/pasted from an article on the princeton.edu domain which recursively cites the Wikipedia article, which ultimately cites this article on the tufts.edu domain where the first word of the article is Παιάν with this word tracker showing they appear the same amount of times but the spelling with the acute emphasized alpha instead of the omega is the user voted favorite. Either way, until a preference can be cited, the article should use the spelling matching the name of the article, as the other spelling redirects to the current spelling. I'm going to roll back the edit and open up a discussion for it on the the talk page

Edit: It seems you up and moved the page without citing anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penitence (talk • contribs) 23:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on the talk page would be good. I'm the one who wrote most of the article, and when I wrote it the article was called "Peaon (god)", so that's why the spelling "Peaon" was used throughout. The article was, unbeknownst to me, subsequently moved to "Paean (god)" (with no discussion or reason given). My (albeit limited) research at the time I worked on the article seemed to indicate that "Paeon" was the more common name for the god (see for example this Google Books search), while "Paean" is the more common name for the epithet. But I could be wrong ;-) Regards, Paul August ☎ 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plans for 30 day effort to get establish a page upgrade for Prometheus

From your revert today of the Goethe section.

May I invite you to the Cynwolfe Talk page discussion for a plan under way for improvements for a page upgrade for the Prometheus page. Also to invite your comments and possible participation. We have been discussing a 30-day plan for September to try to get this wikipage an upgrade status by the end of this month. Your comments are welcome.

The edit which you deleted was a transitional edit only. It was only made for the purpose of establishing the form of upgrade outline needed for the plan to obtain the page upgrade. As a good faith edit, after you visit the Cynwolfe Talk page discussion, if you have comments plus or minus, mark them into discussion. Invite to visit the discussion and participate to get the page upgrade. 72.68.5.132 (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Athena - cuts not intended, am fixing

The edit I was working on wrote over yours, sorry. It was not intentional and last night I corrected the image relocation. Right now I am logged in with the intention to reinstate your other edits. No need for you to do it again. I have the history up and will fix it. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed they were unintended, but I wanted to make sure before I redid them. Thanks for doing that. Paul August ☎ 16:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fermat

You might want to know there is an open edit warring case against the Fermat-solver you just reverted. Regards. Jamesx12345 17:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2012

Are you planning on creating this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no. Paul August ☎ 16:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only surviving detailed proof of Fermat

You reverted my edit to the equation x^4 − y^4 = z^2. While you are obviously correct, I think it would be more clear to add that something like "Since any solution of the Fermat equation with exponent 4 gives a solution of the equation also, it follows that Fermat's claim is true for n=4. [1] That is, the equation x^4 − y^4 = z^4 has no non-trivial integer solutions." after the sentence in question.

MeQuerSat (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://math.stanford.edu/~lekheng/flt/gouvea.pdf

Reverting trolling

Good to see someone reverting that notorious Newyorkbrad on sight! I'll help ya! darwinbish BITE ☠ 13:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Somebody has to do it! Though in this case some subconscious alter ego seems to have been indulging in some sleep-typing. Makes me wonder what else It's done? Paul August ☎ 13:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a Salesman

Sorry about that. Brain fart on my end. - Nellis 01:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ;-) Paul August ☎ 11:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror symmetry article

Hello Paul August,

I heard from User:AGK that you might be interested in reviewing the article on mirror symmetry, which is currently a featured article candidate. If you're interested, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this page.

Thanks for your help,

Polytope24 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polytope24. Sorry, but I don't think I will be able to help out there. Regards, Paul August ☎ 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Choka loka taka laka

floo flee burgenheimer I like to eat cherry piesers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleebin bobbin (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Paul August, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ~ Anastasia (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of Medusa

Hello, Paul. I have received a request to look at your editing at Medusa. When I received that request, I had never edited the article, apart from one reversion of vandalism in April 2010, and as far as I recall I had not even looked at the article since then. I certainly had no prior knowledge or opinion concerning the issue that was raised in the message I received, but I have now checked the editing history of the article. I see that you have removed references to rape from the article. It is true that "vitiare" can be translated in various ways, depending on context, but the question to be addressed is not how you or I think it should be interpreted in this context, but how it is interpreted in reliable sources. The source cited in the article says "Poseidon also raped Medusa", but rather than just accept one source, I have searched for others. I found that a large number of sources explicitly refer to the act in question as rape, as for example, here, where we read "Ovid reports at 798 the rape of the maiden Meusa", here, where we read "When Neptune rapes her in the temple of the goddess", here "The aition of Medusa's hair provides the frame for the story of Neptune's rape of the girl", and so on. I found some sources which used less unequivocal language, such as "ravished" (which in any case is pretty certainly used to mean "raped"), but I have been unable to find any source which explicitly denies that it was rape, nor even one which seriously calls into question that reading. Do you have any reliable sources which contradict the reading of "vitiasse" as referring to rape? If you do, then it would be a good idea to indicate in the article that the interpretation is controversial, and to cite those sources along with one or more sources that take it as a case of rape. However, since there is clearly a substantial body of reliable scholarly opinion that does take it as rape, I can't see any justification for removing all reference to that view altogether. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. More (4.799) translates Hanc pelagi rector templo vitiasse Minervae dicitur as "Fame declares the Sovereign of the Sea attained her love in chaste Minerva's temple." And I think I've seen others which allow for something other than rape. If I have the time I may look for other sources, but unless I do, given the two sources you've provided above (I think you should add these to the article, they are better than the one currently there), I'm happy to let things stand as they are. Regards, Paul August ☎ 14:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, "attained her love" for "vitiasse"? I can't find anything in any dictionary, either on paper or online, that supports that. About the weakest translations I can find are such terms as "spoil", "damage". For example, http://www.wordsense.eu/vitio/#Latin gives "make faulty, spoil, damage", and it also gives "violate sexually". I am inclined to the impression that Brookes More, who was born in 1859, was indulging in a little Victorian prudery, and censoring the text. As I said above, what you or I think the translation should be is not the deciding factor, but for what it's worth, it seems to me that of all the possible meanings of the verb, "rape" (or "violate sexually") is the one most natural in the context, but at the very least something like corrupting her by leading her astray must be intended, since all the meanings of the word have unmistakable connotations of damage or violation, which "attained her love" does not even remotely hint at. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well keep in mind that vitiasse (violate) might be being used by Ovid to describe what was being done to "chaste Minerva's temple" as much or more than what was being done to Medusa, and even if the sex were meant to be consensual, Ovid might still describe Medusa as being "violated". In any case this is poetry we are talking about here, perhaps we are asking too much of it. Paul August ☎ 16:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and comment delete or keep Dao's theorem

Hello Paul August,

I see history of Euclidean geometry I think You have knowledgeable classical geometry, please read pages Dao's theorem and comment anything You think. Delete or keep pages Dao's theorem. Thank to You very much.

Best regards

Sincerely

--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Robert McClenon. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You deleted content from WP:AN. It has been re-inserted. If this was an accident, disregard this message. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know how this happened. Paul August ☎ 00:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Fat-finger syndrome? But Robert, I think asking a long-time administrator with I don't know how many harmlessly useful edits since 2004 to use the sandbox if he would like to experiment is a little uncalled-for, even if he did misclick. You wrote a few words of your own, which is nice, but they would have been enough; why post the template at all? Humanspeak rules, unless you're actually reverting vandalism. Bishonen | talk 01:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Your edit summary made me smile ;-) While humanspeak is usually better, in my case templatespeak suits since I'm only artificially intelligent. Paul August ☎ 01:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flo, wow Bishonen and now you. I should really misclick more often. Paul August ☎ 02:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eleusinian Mysteries - note on change

Hey, I just wanted to drop a line explaining why I changed "spring" back to "autumn" on Eleusinian Mysteries - the paragraph in question describes Greene's theory that Persephone's time in Hades represents the parched Greek summer, not the winter, and that Persephone's return corresponds to planting seeds in the autumn, not the spring. In almost every other case, we'd be right to have "spring" there, but in this particular paragraph, "autumn" is correct. (Whether Greene was correct or not is questionable, even though his work is seminal, and that's discussed in the very next paragraph.) In any case, thanks for your efforts on mythology articles. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing talk page entry on Reductio ad absurdum

You look like a very experienced editor so I was wondering why you reverted my entry on Talk:Reductio ad absurdum. As I'm sure you know, editing other editors' Talk comments is not done except for very specific reasons (WP:TPOC). I didn't think my remarks were off-topic or libelous :) Was it just an error? --ChetvornoTALK 20:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry, that was apparently a misclick on my part. Paul August ☎ 02:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no problemo. --ChetvornoTALK 04:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from a user whose edits you reverted

I'm not going to start a revert war, but suggest you reconsider your reversion of my edit a while ago to waves. There is no such thing as an air molecule. In mechanics and acoustics we speak of air "particles" but gas molecules, or we skip the semantic issue entirely by talking about density rather than discrete items. There is no such thing as an air molecule. Altaphon (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that context I take "air molecules" to mean any of the several gas molecules which collectively constitue the air, see for example this Google Books search. Paul August ☎ 12:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aged?

Hi there. Regarding this revert to the Virgil article, "aged" is a fairly common usage in this context and it is in fact used by our standard template {{death date and age}}. Regards, Favonian (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Paul August ☎ 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

0 Zero

Dear Paul, you just deleted a paragraph on Zero in the section of computer science. But, you did not provide a reason for your reversal (or delete). Please tell us the reason why you remove it.

Sincerely, Yohannesb (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I find many problems with your addition. MOre than I have the time or inclination to go into now. Paul August ☎ 15:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul, please consider adding this information on computer section of zero.

Computers communicate with each other with lights (Fiber Optics) or Electrical Signals. The advantage of using light is you can beam it through satellites, just as you would beam light through mirrors. When you see lights turning on and off very quickly in a network, it means there is a network communication of different computers. This OFF and ON is represented by 0s and 1s, respectively. Calculating with 0s and 1s is called Boolean algebra. In a computer, ON means 1 and OFF means 0. One English alphabet is represented by a bunch of binary numbers. For example, A=01000001, B=01000010, C=01000011 etc. etc. So, when you push the alphabet “A” on the computer, there is a cut off time, and this is “01000001”. One computer sends this binary number (“01000001”) and the receiving computer interprets it to “A”. Each color has its own binary numbers. That is what it means when we say that a camera is a digital camera --it simply means, it understands binary numbers. However, since we cannot write with binary numbers, we must use computer languages to write the binary numbers in the computers for us. The computer languages in turn work between the users and the computers. In other words, as you are reading this, behind this page, there is a computer language page; behind that computer language page, there is a binary number language page; behind that binary number language, there is 0s and 1s page; and behind 0s and 1s, there is light on and off page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannesb (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but even if one were to fix the many problems with the above text, I don't think this it has much to do with the number 0, and thus doesn't belong in that article. Paul August ☎ 19:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=647462565 -->

Hesiod

Paul, I left your edit to the Pluto page in, but just for the record, the other poems attributed to Hesiod are generally not accepted as authentic, as his page in fact attests. Eponymous-Archon (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but still ... Paul August ☎ 00:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the myth of npov

Hi Paul, I just wanted to let you know of a discussion at the WP:Wikiproject religion re the presentation of supposedly divine beings. The main concern is that present day faiths are treated as religions while past time faiths are labelled as myths. GregKaye 18:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between Greek mythology and Greek religion, fugures such as Gaia and Thalia have more to do with Greek mythology than Greek religion. Paul August ☎ 12:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Removing red links is at best controversial. Depends on whether there might be an article there. Leaving them might encourage others to create the articles. I also apologize for the edit summary. Overbearing and wrong-headed. I was not thinking clearly. Sorry. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. But I don't believe I removed any red links, which ones are you talking about? The links you restored here, are not red. Paul August ☎ 13:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I screwed up even more than I thought. I won't interfere. Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! I apparently was having a bad day. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, don't worry about it ;-) Paul August ☎ 14:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates

Hi Paul August, I'm an editor who contributed an amount to Socrates, and the subject of my edits is under discussion on that articles talk page. Would you please join the discussion as i would really value your involvement since you state - Advanced degrees! and Areas of interest: Mathematics, Classical history, Philosophy, and being listed in the top ten edits Whalestate (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on that talk page. Paul August ☎ 17:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Noether

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Are_adjectives_the_enemy.3F Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

real analysis

Hello Paul, Regarding: (Undid revision 661595908 by Jcardazzi (talk) I'm dubious this is a common name for this field of mathematics: Source?)

Below are some sources, the first is listed as an external link in the mathematical and real analysis WP articles. In Math, the term basic analysis seems to be the subject name used as an introduction to real analysis, sometimes also used a standalone name, sometimes used in a combined name Basic Real Analysis. The style of the name seems to vary by the university math department

Maybe a better edit is (Basic Analysis is a subject name used for an Introduction to Real Analysis).

I knew the subject as basic analysis and could not find the name in wikipedia, and just wished to make the connection for other readers in the future.

Thank you,Jcardazzi (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi[reply]

Basic Analysis: Introduction to Real Analysis This book is a one semester course in basic analysis.It started its life as my lecture notes for teaching Math 444 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in Fall semester 2009. Later I added the metric space chapter to teach Math 521 at University of Wisconsin–Madison http://www.jirka.org/ra/ with University of Pittsburgh supplements Fall 2011 http://www.math.pitt.edu/~frank/pittanal2121.pdf http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Analysis-Introduction-Real/dp/1505695910

Basic Analysis http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Analysis-Kenneth-Kuttler/dp/1589490193

A MAT 312/312Z Basic Analysis Theoretical aspects of calculus including construction of the real numbers, differentiation and integration of functions in one variable, continuity, convergence, sequences and series of functions. http://www.albany.edu/undergraduate_bulletin/a_mat.html

[pdf] Basic Analysis: Introduction To Real Analysis http://www.urlbooklib.com/rudin-real-and-complex-analysis-solution-mit/

Basic Analysis: Introduction to Real Analysis http://www.maa.org/publications/maa-reviews/basic-analysis-introduction-to-real-analysis

Basic Real Analysis https://books.google.com/books?id=bi7Cg-iFYaMC&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=difference+between+basic+analysis+and+real+analysis&source=bl&ots=xlK8TE7ozN&sig=jrfI_6hP2hQp0qXYrs9ZgvdxN64&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Wo9PVfazDoOSyQTT1YHwAQ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=difference%20between%20basic%20analysis%20and%20real%20analysis&f=false

Hi Jcardazzi. "'Basic Analysis" being the name of a course on the subject of real analysis, or the name of a book about the the subject of real analysis, is not the same thing as being another name for the field of mathematics called real analysis. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul August, yes I understand. Because the term "Basic Analysis" is used as a name for an Introduction to Real Analysis, could text be added to the article to note the term Basic Analysis is used as a shortname for an Introduction course to Real Analysis? Thank you, Jcardazzi (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi[reply]

Mess

Hi. I hoped smb will have the patience to REMOVE THE WRONGLY PLACED MATERIAL, not just my "message in a bottle". The latter is easy. Check the definition (in the lead or anywhere else) and you'll see what I mean. For a change, there is little to discuss here. If you're involved in this art., please do take it on from here, but in a thorough manner please. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

Hi. Leaving a "message" in an article like that was not really appropriate. Paul August ☎ 10:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Merchant of Venice may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • article "'Unconventional Director Sets Shakespeare Play In Time, Place Shakespeare Intended".<ref>[http://www.theonion.com/articles/unconventional-director-sets-shakespeare-play-in-t,2214/?ref=auto</

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

an AfD you may be interested in

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concepts_and_names_in_the_Epic_of_Gilgamesh, which concerns an article created by User:Whalestate, whom you may recall from discussions at Socrates. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus

Hello Paul August, you've reverted my edit above. Did you see, that I've sorted alphabetically? Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry. Paul August ☎ 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal and syphilis

hey admin guy, a newly-minted editor has wandered into potential edit war at Hannibal re syphilis. See Talk:Hannibal. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had noticed that. I've replied on that talk page. Paul August ☎ 13:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Punic War

Hey! I have always known that one of the main hopes of Hannibal when invading the Italic paeninsula was that the socii would abandon Rome, thus destroying the Roman hegemony in the process. While Etruria, Umbria, Picenum and Latium were largely unscathed and retained their allegiance to the republic (Rome kept legions there in order to convince them, lol), the Southern regions (where Hannibal and his army were actually staying) defected (i.e., they had no other option but defecting) Rome. Thus, primarily, Capua, the Hirpini (but not the other Samnites), Apulians, Lucanians... While I have never heard of Hannibal ever actually deploying any of their troops in battle, that was the point I wanted to make: both Numidians and Italians were forced to be on both sides of the war. --2.41.55.118 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Access

Dear Paul, I read somewhere few days ago that through wikipedia one can access digitally pay sites for free. I am interested in reading some articles or passages in books on Dionysian initiations and the Kaberoi. Could you please let me know where I can find the relevant info about procedure? Thank you and sorry for the trouble.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aldrasto11: See Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases. Paul August ☎ 11:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology for Cerberus

Hi Paul,

At Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_20#Demon_of_the_pit we're having some fun trying to sort out the "etymology" of Demon of the pit for Cerberus/Kerberos, which I guess used to be the etymology here (I've read Talk:Cerberus#Etymology, and if it helps to establish bona fides, I'm the co-creator of {{etymology}})). I noticed you'd done a lot on the etymology of this, but am trying to pin down when it was changed from nonsense to something sensible, as the nonsense etymology went feral. It's no big deal, but if you happen to know, I'd be glad to have my curiosity unpiqued.

Thanks in advance

Si Trew (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: Actually, although I've extensively rewritten most of the article Cerberus over the last two months, I've yet to do much with the "Etymology" section (unfortunately that's also my weakest area). Most of what little I know (so far) is already included in that section. I do have the Ogden source mentioned there, and he does say a bit more with several scholars (in addition to Lincoln) critical of the "spotted" etymology, but nowhere have I found any mention of this "demon of the pit" etymology. So, unless some reliable source for that etymology can be found, I think that redirect should go. Regards, Paul August ☎ 19:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt reply. I will try to fill you in as best I can, but I didn't want to go on too long (a bad habit of mine.)
If one puts "Demon of the pit", with the quotes, into Google, one gets a lot of results, but most are essentially quoting Wikipedia, as far as I can tell (I've put in a couple over at the RfD that I linked earlier, one to the documentation for Ruby (programming language) and one taught in a computer science course from a university that I have never heard of, the University of Kerching Kerching, or something. I didn't try too hard, but that reference predates the use in WP by three years.
My Ancient Greek is nonexistent beyond translating the alphabet; my Latin a little better. The "spotted" dog reminds me a bit of Anubis in Egyptian mythology, sometimes depicted as a jackal, but a jackal ain't much spotted. There is the phrase "they were first spotted" in the Golden Jackal article, but in hunting that down I followed false scent.

The plot thins... I'll try to help you with the ety, if you want. This one is getting in the way of it, so the sooner deleted, the better: thanks for that. Si Trew (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: I've now found what I suspect to be the original source for the "demon of the pit" etymology: Robert Graves, The Greek Myths (not the most reliable of sources), which in the index entry for Cerbeus, p. 385 has "? ker berethrou, demon of the pit". Paul August ☎ 20:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. The first sentence at fi:Kerberos (Finnish) is in that -thou form; I think the -os form would be nominative and perhaps (transliterated) this is dative or ablative, but then I am thinking in Latin not Greek. I doubt OE letter thorn (we could have done with keeping that for a theta), but I'll check it out. Good RS you have there; I only have Graves in woodware. Si Trew (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is no good, I bet it comes from WP ety unattributed: [[2]]. This would be the "Wikipedia is unreliable" argument, not the "You did not quote where you got it from under CC-SA" argument. Si Trew (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one's interesting: http://www.kelpienet.net/rea/foro/temas.php?num=1&id=2760. (Spanish).

Hola enigma. Esa leyenda me parece que noes atribuible a la mitología griega ,si no más bien a la sumeria o egipcia. Cerbero deriva de "Ker Berethrou" (demonio del abismo),es decir, que se le puede atribuir,confusamente,cualquier mito que tenga que ver con un Ker(o Cer). No obstante,cada autor tiene licencia para describir un mito como le salga de los güevos,de hecho, Hesiodo le puso 50 cabezas al "canis abominablis".

Ahora permíteme un par de preguntas: ¿Quién castigó a Kerbero? ¿Cuál es la editorial?

Roughly:

Hi Enigma..
It seems to me that this legend attributed to Greek Mythology, is more Sumerian or Ancient Egyptian.
"Cerberus" is derived from "Ker Berethrou" (Demon of the Abyss [my, SimonTrew's emphasis: Spanish Abismo]; it could be attributed (confusingly) with any legend that has to do with Kerberos/Cerberus.
Now, allow me a few questions:
  • Who punished Kerberos?
  • Who is the publisher?

I guess this is someone self-publishing something about this legend, but the telling thing is the reply saying it could be equally Sumerian or Egyptian. I realise this is not RS of course but why would they say that... perhaps the story was just set vaguely in the ancient world of course. But might be worth following up to see why she would think it at all viable to be set in Egypt or Sumeria. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(My underline.) Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way you can use {{ety}} to do {{ety|grc|berethron|pit}} to give

from Ancient Greek berethron 'pit' and things like that. Hardly anyone does, but in wishful days we thought we would actually have some articles meeting WP:MOS, but since that is such a moving target anyway I just gave up on that in preference to WP:COMMONSENSE and barely look at it now. MOre important to create and correct content; RfD is a bit of a backwater, I know, but it is kinda widely if shallowly knowledgeable people – and I hope I am one of them – who can at least do some gnoming on indexes and disambiguation and translation and stuff like that. Si Trew (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest in philosophy

Hi Paul; Your User page seemed to say you had an interest in philosophy. Is it possible that you might be able to do a close on the short RfC at Phaedrus (dialogue) which recently passed the 30-day mark? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't really have the time to tackle this now. Paul August ☎ 12:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu–Arabic numeral system

I saw you have retrieved my recent edit of the page Hindu–Arabic numeral system. I would like to know the reason for doing so as I don't see a point of using BC instead of BCE as BCE emphasize secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians. Ashim nep (talk)AA 03:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ashim. Please see WP:ERA. On WIkipedia either era system, BC/AD or BCE/CE, may be used, and it is generally against Wikipedia policy to change one system to the other. Paul August ☎ 11:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus and Typhon

please see page 209 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ujn2fPCwaUAC&pg=PR7&dq=Lord+Mudgala+seal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjom6CDj_vJAhVF_HIKHbB-DFUQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Lord%20Mudgala%20seal&f=false

(was located via https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZD5-CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT107&dq=Sumerian+divination&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Sumerian%20divination&f=false)

toodle pip Whalestate (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 12:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)

Hi Paul, Could you please close a counter-productive endless debate at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue) one way or another? ~~ BlueMist (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't think I will be able to address this. Paul August ☎ 12:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For keeping your cool in the midst of a 3RR violation and some personal attacks, by yours truly. Thanks! --Monochrome_Monitor 17:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Paul August ☎ 19:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

Paul, in December 2013 you blocked this IP user indefinitely for vandalism. I trust this was simply a misclick on your part; I've unblocked the IP. DS (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Paul August ☎ 21:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Enceladus (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Seneca
Giants (Greek mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Seneca
Typhon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Seneca

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Reversion on Cerberus

I see no discussion about named references on Talk:Cerberus and I don't feel the need to bother other editors with this discussion. If not using named references were a practice determined by consensus, I would have expected to see a discussion. Rather, this seems like a unilateral decision, so I felt that I should ask you directly about reverting my edit. I do not understand the cause for reversion. The only things that I could see that might drive this decision would be the references section outside of the notes section or that you're working on your own version, but I don't understand why this would prohibit named references. Named references are used to combine identical references; I can't fathom how it would be more helpful to have duplicate footnotes, even if they were referring to references in the reference list. I am restoring my original edits that were not related to references in a separate edit, but I will WP:AGF and refrain from cleaning up duplicated references for the time being. Not sure why you couldn't just put the rationale in the edit summary, but the onus should be on you to provide rationale as to why this action isn't WP:OWNy or to demonstrate consensus. —Ost (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ost216. Named references make an article more difficult to edit, and in fact present a considerable barrier to editing, especially to the novice editor. For some articles which rely on a few specific citations, used over and over throughout the article, I can see some advantages (though probably not enough in my view to out weigh the disadvantages). But that is not the case here. Why do you want to change the way this article does its citations? What is the large benefit you see which out weight the disadvantages? You say the onus is on me to say why I want to preserve the status quo, I rather think the onus is on you to say why you want to change it. See for example WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." And by the way if you are going to introduce named references you should choose descriptive names rather than "auto1" and "auto2" etc. There is more that I could say but right now I'm leaving on a trip now and internet access will be limited. Regards, Paul August ☎ 11:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Your revert on Alexander the Great

Hello. Are you aware that your revert added a duplicated link to Macedonia (ancient kingdom)? Macedon, just a couple of words later is a redirect to that article, and the main reason why I reverted the edit by Muntele. And Muntele's seemingly POV edits on a string of other articles, which include replacing "Greece" with "Macedonia", and generally downplaying Greece, is the reason I restored the link to Ancient Greece. Just thought I'd let you know. Thomas.W talk 21:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. My revert was inadvertent. Paul August ☎ 23:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Who'd have thought it!

[3]So glad you've access to the source]. And so much for my fulsome apologies... Haploidavey (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

;-) Paul August ☎ 23:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Tartarus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Gaia and Aether
Pontus (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Aether

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Grc incubator project

Dear Paul August, seeing that you are a member of the Wikiproject Greece group and deal mostly with ancient history, I am letting you know that there is currently an ongoing proposal to have an ancient greek wikipedia created, so you are welcomed to participate and share your thoughts, as well as participate in the actual incubator wiki. Best regards. Gts-tg (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theogony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora's box

Thanks for clarification on "Hope" and also for keeping the quotation marks :).Sattar91 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theogony, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Epimetheus, Iapetus and Clymene (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theogony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tethys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to be back, thank you

After User:Peter Damian got rehabilitated, my reason for not editing sort of went away. I have a goal now: to get the Logic article up to good article status. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that kind thought. I made considerable changes to Sense and reference. Peter Damian (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Phoebe (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Iapetus and Tethys
Iapetus (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tethys

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep Orpheus devoid of tourist links and resolved issues? Such as Thracomania? There is a persistence of tourist stuff by some people and removing sourced material whether of primary or secondary sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.83.40 (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but why are you telling me this exactly? Paul August ☎ 07:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hathitrust

Dear Paul, I would like to download Buck's "Grammar of Oscan and U." available at Hathitrust. Can I do it through Wikipedia or if not, by what other means? Thank you for the attention.Aldrasto1111:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_August&oldid=725552813"