User talk:Paul August

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I'm sorry, you have reached an imaginary number. If you require a real number please rotate your telephone by ± 90° and try again.

Crystal Clear app file-manager.png

Individual archives:


Reverting trolling[edit]

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

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)

Death of a Salesman[edit]

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

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

Mirror symmetry article[edit]

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)

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)

Choka loka taka laka[edit]

floo flee burgenheimer I like to eat cherry piesers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleebin bobbin (talkcontribs) 16:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day[edit]

Nuvola apps cookie.svg Happy First Edit Day, Paul August, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ~ Anastasia (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing of Medusa[edit]

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)

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)
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, 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)
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)
Fair enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read and comment delete or keep Dao's theorem[edit]

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


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

November 2014[edit]

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)

Hmm, I don't know how this happened. Paul August 00:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
(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).
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)
 :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Flo, wow Bishonen and now you. I should really misclick more often. Paul August 02:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Eleusinian Mysteries - note on change[edit]

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)

OK. Paul August 20:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing talk page entry on Reductio ad absurdum[edit]

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)

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

Feedback from a user whose edits you reverted[edit]

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)

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)


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)

Really? Paul August 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

0 Zero[edit]

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 14:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at -->


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)

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

the myth of npov[edit]

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)

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)

Edit summary[edit]

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)

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)
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)
Ok, don't worry about it ;-) Paul August 14:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 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)


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)

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

Emmy Noether[edit]

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

real analysis[edit]

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

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 with University of Pittsburgh supplements Fall 2011

Basic Analysis

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.

[pdf] Basic Analysis: Introduction To Real Analysis

Basic Analysis: Introduction to Real Analysis

Basic Real Analysis

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)

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


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

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

May 2015[edit]

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>[,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)

an AfD you may be interested in[edit]

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)


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)

Ok sorry. Paul August 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hannibal and syphilis[edit]

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)

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

Second Punic War[edit]

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. -- (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


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)

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

Etymology for Cerberus[edit]

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)

@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)
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)

@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)
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)
This is no good, I bet it comes from WP ety unattributed: [[1]]. 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)
This one's interesting: (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?


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)

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

from Ancient Greek berethron, meaning '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)

Your interest in philosophy[edit]

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)

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

Hindu–Arabic numeral system[edit]

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)

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)

Zeus and Typhon[edit]

please see page 209

(was located via

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

Thanks. Paul August 12:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)[edit]

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)

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png 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)
Thanks. Paul August 19:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


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)

OK. Paul August 21:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reversion on Cerberus[edit]

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)

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)

Your revert on Alexander the Great[edit]

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)

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

Who'd have thought it![edit]

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

 ;-) Paul August 23:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Grc incubator project[edit]

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)

Pandora's box[edit]

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

Nice to be back, thank you[edit]

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)

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

Tourist and advertisment links in Orpheus[edit]

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 (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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


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)

Sorry, but I don't know anything about Hathitrust. Paul August 08:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Areas of mathematics[edit]

Hello Paul August - I noticed that you are interested in the Outline of mathematics. So am I. Last month I initiated a discussion about Divisions of mathematics on the WikiProject Mathematics talk page. I was particularly concerned with the structure of Template:Areas of mathematics. Some discussion ensued but little was done. I wonder if you would be curious to take a look at the discussion and share your impressions with me.--Toploftical (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I have anything to contribute to that discussion. Paul August 21:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Zeno's paradoxes[edit]

Hi Paul. Do you think it is time to ask for semi-protection for this page? I realize that your hands are tied in this matter, but I would be willing to make the request if you thought it was appropriate. They(?)'ve been at it daily since July 1 (and sometimes more than once a day) and many of the IP's have been devoted just to this. While I had initially felt that this might be a valid, but overstated, point, I now consider it just another form of persistent vandalism. Thanks for your daily efforts with this. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support semi-pretection. Paul August 23:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

why did you cockblock me[edit]

my info was accurate and informational. why dont you understand A E S T H E T I C?-- (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum[edit]

What do you mean it's not an improvement? If there were a smallest positive rational number, then there would be and that would be that, but since there isn't precisely for that reason, you have to say "supposedly"; otherwise you're contradicting yourself. Esszet (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No you don't have to say "supposedly" (that would be redundant). And you're not "contradicting yourself", saying "if P" doesn't mean you are asserting that P is true. Paul August 18:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes you do; if there were, there would be, and that would be that; thus it would not be able to be divided by two to get a smaller one. That sentence is thus nonsensical and contradictory. Esszet (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"just wondering"[edit]

Hi Paul, I'm new to editing here and just wondering - what in my addition of a relevant artist was inappropriate for Mathematics and Art? Wmccrue (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wmccrue, and welcome to Wikipedia. In my opinion the artist T Barny is too obscure to use here. Paul August 22:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks for the reply! I got too stuck on the Mobius reference, I suppose. Wmccrue (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svgHello, Paul August. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


And I have to admit, it reads much better without. One gets irrationally attached, from time to time. Haploidavey (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 ;-) Paul August 15:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I sense deeper currents amidst WP roadways. I'm a newb. Thanks for the help. Bjhodge8 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Salutaria Paul August 16:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

RE: Replacing em dashes with en dashes?[edit]

I apologize. I was using the mobile app on Android, and the em dashes rendered incorrectly. I misinterpreted them as en dashes, and so I used the snd template to "fix" them. It may have been a bug in the app, or it might have just been my eyes playing tricks on me. In either case, there was another fix in the same edit (an extra space before a ; ), but I have to go to class now. Link: ReGuess (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

OK Paul August 18:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. Mike VTalk 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Paul August.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Paul August. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Paul August. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Endymion (mythology)[edit]

Hi, Paul. About the Category:LGBT themes in mythology in the Endymion (mythology), there says: "According to a passage in Deipnosophistae, the sophist and dithyrambic poet Licymnius of Chios[11] tells a different tale, in which Hypnos, the god of sleep, in awe of his beauty, causes him to sleep with his eyes open, so he can fully admire his face." FábioEscorpião (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Does any reliable secondary source support this? Paul August 02:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Is really needed a secondary source for this? FábioEscorpião (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes I think so. Paul August 11:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Please search for "Endymion" on this page about god Hypnos ( This is enough?--FábioEscorpião (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that a reasonable interpretation of Athenaeus' quote (given on the page you link) is that in Athenaeus' view at least, Licymnius represented Hypnos (Sleep) as loving Endymion, in a romantic/sexual way, but that is just my personal opinion and carries no weight. What we really need is some modern scholar who interprets the Licymnius fragment in this way. The cite that you link to is neither a reliable source, nor does it give any interpretation at all of the Licymnius fragment. Paul August 15:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Olive Byrne[edit]

Thanks for the contribution! Is there a different procedure for this? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no "procedure". Bringing it up where you did was fine. It would also have been reasonable to have simply removed it yourself. Paul August 22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy holidays![edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Thank you. And Happy Holidays to you too. Paul August 02:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Good job catching that IP's edits. That's the kind of vandalism that can linger for months or more if not caught right away. Cheers! Sario528 (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Paul August 23:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


Hello, could I possibly ask your opinion about recent (and not so recent) edits to the Demigod article? This afternoon I noted down most of the edits over the past few months by an IP whose only real contribution to this article seems to be to change citations so that they point to the most modern edition and then demand that page numbers be supplied. There have been more since I did this. Additionally there have been vague requests for more examples, requests that the See Also section be reduced, requests for ISBNs of pre-ISBN books and so on. There are also a few genuinely helpful edits and I have mostly tried to accommodate the user by doing things like searching for page numbers. It may be something I should simply accept; and I realise these tags are available for a reason. But at the same time my overall impression is that he is not really here to do anything except get as many tags into the article as possible and he refuses to engage in any discussion or even to provide edit summaries. Your opinion would be appreciated. Many thanks. --Lo2u (TC) 17:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lo2u, I've been watching that page, and I think you've done a good job responding to the IP edits there. As you say some of the IP edits have been helpful, and the others have been undone, with no apparent objections from the IPs. So the net effect has been to make the article a little better. I haven't seen any obviously malicious edits—the request for nonexistent ISBNs might simply be ignorance. The worst suspicion I might entertain about the user (or users) is that they are perhaps taking some sort of juvenile pleasure in making you hop to their tune, but nothing actionable yet. I understand that this, and their unwillingness (or inability?) to communicate might be frustrating. I will continue to watch the article and help out in any way I can. Paul August 12:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


I put in a request at WP:Requests for Page Protection to have Typhon semi-protected so we can force the anonymous deleter into explaining its actions on the talkpage and not in an ongoing edit war.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Paul August 17:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories[edit]

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am deeply ...[edit]

.. sorry. I have always wondered how editing worked because my teachers say Wikipedia is not a good source because anyone can edit it. I hope you forgive me for the vandalism. I am willing to take any punishment. Ikester45102 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Paul August 00:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

my edits[edit]


would you please reconsider to publish my edits? because they are referred to an AHCI (Arts & Humanity Citation Index) indexed scientific journal.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guvengunver (talkcontribs) 06:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

To be notable enough to be included in our articles these results should be mentioned by secondary sources. Paul August 11:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your guidance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guvengunver (talkcontribs) 12:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


Why not an image like this instead?

[3]. Just curious. jps (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No not pointy. It seems to me that in a section titled "Wading and bipedalism" it's appropriate to show an image of a wading biped. Do you think it shouldn't be there? Paul August 17:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
None of the sources mention gorillas wading as somehow being relevant to AAH. Do you know of any? jps (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The image illustrates what the text is talking about. It doesn't make any assertions, other than that it is an image of a wading gorilla, which I don't think needs a source. Paul August 17:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
And, by the way I'm having a hard time understanding why you would think my edit was "pointy". Paul August 17:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
What line from the text are you contending that the image is talking about? As for WP:POINT, I don't understand why you think it appropriate to reinsert an image that I removed and is being discussed at AN/I. It feels WP:BAITy to me. Sorry if I'm overreacting. jps (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
ANI is for discussions about conduct not content, in this case about your conduct in making this edit. So I don't see how such a discussion, makes my adding that image (with a slightly different caption) inappropriate. You now seem to be accusing me of trying to bait or goad you in some way. I assure you that's not the case. As for further discussions of the merits of the image in the article, I suggest they should occur on the article's talk page. Paul August 18:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I was talking about my feelings here. It feels baity/pointy. I am not arguing that you are doing anything wrong, I'm merely pointing out my feelings and trying to figure out what your intention is. jps (talk)

Fine. Paul August 21:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I just thought I'd let you know that jps's assertion "None of the sources mention gorillas wading as somehow being relevant to AAH" is far from correct. I've just checked on three sources mentioned in the section and also in the discussion pages, about this picture. Niemitz 2002 has 22 mentions of gorillas, Niemitz 2010 has 16, and Kuliukas 2010 has 24. Both of them favor a wading hypothesis so his edit comments "not an article on wading gorillas" and "gorillas aren't bipeds" (assuming this is him) are uninformed and simply working the system. He clearly never looked at the article and assumed you wouldn't have time to either. Chris55 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Category: Offspring of Oceanus[edit]

Please revert the category of Cronus, Rhea and Phorcys to the Offspring of Oceanus because I have the reference for that: "Of Ge and Uranus were born the children Oceanus and Tethys; and of these, Phorkys, Cronos, Rhea, and all that go with them" (Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1925.) --Markx121993 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes you're right, I'd forgotten about Plato's unorthodox Titan genealogy. But I'm not sure that warrants their inclusion in that category. If you do want to add back the category I won't remove it again, but you should add the Plato reference to their articles. Paul August 00:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

List of oceanids[edit]

Ok I will delete the numbering sequence.--Markx121993 (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markx121993: Thank you. I have some other concerns about your changes to that list, which I will discuss on the talk page there: Talk:List of Oceanids. By the way it is best if all discussions concerning a particular article are conducted, all in one place, and on that article's talk page, so that other editor's of that page will have easy access to all relevant discussions. So I am going to copy your comment above to that page, and let's continue our discussion there. Regards, Paul August 10:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Thank you for the clarification of PD notice. I will keep it in mind. Markx121993 (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Markx121993: Thank you. Paul August 10:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


I could use your help over at the CITEVAR discussion. I feel it's important, as I often revisit pages that I have on my watchlist, and I find vertical formatting easier to read cites. I don't mess with the formatting of citations that others put on pages, and I'm only asking Synthwave for the same courtesy. If you have time to weigh in again, I'd really appreciate it, thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I've said all I really want to say there. I would also encourage you to not be so attached as to whether horizontal or vertical formatting is used, as I don't think it really makes much difference. Paul August 15:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your input. Just wanted to let you know, there is now a formal RfC on this issue here. Thanks again. Rockypedia (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This is for all your hard work at Iacchus, which brought massive improvements to the article. I see you are now already hard at work trying to improve the article Delphyne. I hope this project turns out just as productive as your previous endeavor. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Paul August 17:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

What? Fat finger?[edit]

Hello, Paul, long time. What was that, fat finger? I've restored the edit you removed. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Hmmm ... I guess so?? I really have no idea how that happened. Anyway sorry about that. One wonders what else these fingers have done unbeknownst to me. Paul August 14:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Haha. Cat on keyboard? Handheld device stolen by squirrel? Bishonen | talk 16:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC).
 ;-) Paul August 17:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


You were quite right.

However, the text as it stood was confusing. I spent about half an hour finding the edit where that odd formation ("Poseidon Erechtheus") entered the text, and seeing no explanation thought it must have been an editing farble.

I have expanded the text a little, to add an explanation of the multiple uses of Erechtheus. If you disapprove, just revert it. Rich Rostrom (Talk) 05:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rrostrom: Yes the text was confusing. Thanks for noticing this. However, I believe that there was only one king named Erechtheus (see List of kings of Athens), so I've modified your changes a bit. Paul August 10:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 05:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August 12:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI Revert[edit]

I assume this was a mistake? Sluzzelin reverted it as such, but I thought I'd check. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Sorry about that. Paul August 23:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! Just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This is for all your amazing hard work on the section about ancient Near Eastern parallels at Typhon, which was an outstanding improvement to the article. I thought you deserved a little more recognition than just a "thank." --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: Thanks. So I'm assuming no other concerns/issues/suggestions then? One possible concern I had was that the section might be too long, although I can't see how to make it much shorter. Paul August 13:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not think the section is too long. I have read it over a few times briefly and it seems to be good, but I may spend more time going over it later, possibly today or tomorrow. From what I have seen, I did not notice any really obvious errors or misstatements. I noticed that you did not mention the Hittite myth of Ullikummi, which Jaan Puhvel associates with the Greek myth of Typhon on pages 25-30 of his book Comparative Mythology, and I believe I have seen associated with it in some other sources that I cannot recall. Nonetheless, the Ullikummi myth is very similar to the "Teshub vs Hedammu" myth, which you do mention. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: I do mention Ullikummi in a footnote. Thanks again for taking the time to look at all this. Paul August 14:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh! Sorry! I must have overlooked that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: Yes, easy to miss there. I stuffed that bit inside a note as result of my concerns over length. Paul August 14:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Selene's image[edit]

What about those who like the statue of Luna version more? Why won't you consider our opinion? Spontanovich2222 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The image you prefer has been considered, and a consensus was reached to use the sarcophagus detail: See Talk:Selene#Resolving a dispute: image for Infobox. I see you've started a new discussion about this on the talk page (thanks for that, that's the right approach), perhaps it will generate a new consensus, if so we can change the image to your preferred version. Paul August 19:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017[edit]

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Mister wiki case has been accepted[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).


Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed EricorbitPercevalThinggTristanbVioletriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news



  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Paul August. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Typhon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porphyry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits at Mathematics[edit]

Hi! The main thing I tried to correct was that "space" links to the page about outer space, rather than Space (mathematics). Is this not a mistake? Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 04:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Steevven1: No in fact in this case, space (which is the article about the abstract concept of space, not Outer space) is the correct link here. But I was wondering if your edits had anything to do with Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy? Paul August 12:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Haha, actually I am aware of Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy and that the Mathematics page is a dead end for it, but my edits did not actually correct this. So, no. It does seem to me that Space (mathematics) really applies more on this page than Space though. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 02:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Steevven1: Well I was wondering about your edits at Mathematics because of your edit at Quantity, which has been a frequent edit by editors who seem determined to, as you say, "correct" the mathematics "dead end". I want to make sure that you understood that there is nothing inherently wrong with articles not "getting to Philosophy" and changing the links in an article based upon whether of not articles "get to Philosophy", is considered disruptive.
As for your link for "space" in the Mathematics article, that lead sentence has been discussed inrensively, and any changes to it are likely to be controversial, and probably should be proposed first on the talk page. Regards, Paul August 11:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
No problem; I totally understand. Thanks for your contributions and concern. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 13:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for December 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Twelve Olympians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hebe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Getting to Philosophy[edit]

eventually ending in wide-reaching pages such as Mathematics, Science, Language, and of course, Philosophy, nicknamed the "mother of all sciences".

This is outright incorrect as all pages leading to Science and Language end at Mathematics which does not lead to Philosophy since it's in a loop.

To be clear, there are 0 pages currently that end at Science or Language.

I can't imagine something more relevent to that page than that. So why the big coverup? Wolfmankurd (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wolfmankurd. Sorry if I upset you by undoing your edit, but I don't think we should mention specific loops on that page since doing so seems to encourgage some editors, who see such loops as a problem, to "fix" them. This has been a source of disruption on several pages, so anything we can do to minimize that would be a good thing.
As far as the sentence that you think is incorrect, you are right that currently no articles end at Science or Language (though in fact, they seem to currently end at Knowledge not Mathematics?), it is still the case that articles tend to end at "wide-reaching pages such as Mathematics, Science, Language, and of course, Philosophy", since Science and Language are still examples of "wide-reaching pages", even if no pages currently end at them.
Paul August 19:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).


Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded AnetodeLaser brainWorm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018[edit]

Pandora's curiosity[edit]

Thanks for spotting the error in my recent edit to Pandora's box. I'm currently working on 'modern' literary and artistic interpretations of Pandora and remembered the detail that Hera gifted her with curiosity without checking the Hesiod source. Hera's gift is mentioned in any number of post 2000 books but I can't find any old and reputable source that does so. I'll continue looking, because it bothers me where that story comes from; but if you already know, I'd be grateful if you could give me the reference. My best guess is that it was slipped into the 15th C Latin version of Hesiod, or it may be in the Calderon drama. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweetpool50: I don't know where the curiosity meme comes from, but I've looked before and I don't think it is from any ancient source. But I could be wrong, it's hard to prove a negative ;-) Paul August 12:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I notice your name as among the editors of the Pandora article, so I guess you may eventually be looking at the additions I uploaded this evening. If the last section there seems to end abruptly, that's because there is another to follow. So far I wanted to integrate bits taken from already existing sections into a new context. It was all getting rather complicated, so I decided to go ahead with what I had so far. I may not get another chance for a day or two! Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've tracked back Hera's gift of curiosity to an English burlesque play of 1831, of which there is a review here. That's regressed it by two centuries, for a start! Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Good work. Notice I've copied the discussion above your last comment, to Talk:Pandora#Pandora's curiosity. Could you please continue the discussion there? Thanks. Paul August 12:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).


Administrator changes

added None
removed BlurpeaceDana boomerDeltabeignetDenelson83GrandioseSalvidrim!Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for February 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Theogony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cyclopes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"I'm here to ask you for a little help..."[edit]

"I'm here to ask you for a little help, Paul. I know you've been editing the page of "Quantity" for a long time, and you agree that the word "property" should not be linked. I know that you know that small change will lead the "lead to philosophy" theory be gone, I don't know the reason why you do it, but I wanna to say, I'm an ordinary person who really loves knowledge just like you, just like all the other wiki editors. Wikipedia is the best resource website that I can learn all kind of knowledge, and when the time I saw the theory that clicking the first link in every page will lead to philosophy, I was delighted, I was delighted by the fact that philosophy is the study of all the essential questions and all the pages of Wikipedia will eventually link to the word philosophy. This is not about any rules or concepts about how to edit Wikipedia anymore, this is about done you want to keep the "fairy tale" of knowledge or do you want to kill it by not linking property. Before I can tell my kids that the Wikipedia they are using has a magic, because everything will eventually link to PHILOSOPHY, but now... now everything will end up the loop of "mathematics" and "element (mathematics), so please, Paul, I'm asking you as a normal person that may you bring the philosophy fairy tale back to Wikipedia, I know you have the ability to end all those unnecessary debates, thanks!


Lewis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamenLewis (talkcontribs) 03:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lewis. thanks for your question, I will try to explain. Adding or removing links to articles should be based upon WP:LINK. This is Wikipedia policy, and has wide editorial consensus. In particular, links should not be based upon whether of not link chains "make it to Philosophy". Moreover, there is no reason why articles should "lead to "philosophy" in the first place. Why not to "mathematics" or "knowledge"? Or some other article? (And in fact, it is entirely possible that a few editors went around changing links in order to create the phenomenon in the first place.) In any case "games" like this are frowned upon, and could lead to being blocked from editing, so please don't do this. Thankyou. Paul August 15:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Hesione (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Palamedes
Philyra (mythology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Palamedes

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).


Administrator changes

added Lourdesdagger
removed AngelOfSadnessBhadaniChris 73CorenFridayMidomMike V
dagger Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.



  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Despite my recent tribulations, I haven't lost faith in Wikipedia yet, since I have a high regard for admins such as yourself and User:NinjaRobotPirate who appear make decisions based on objectivity and fairness, rather than emotion. (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Anchors away[edit]

I spent an age trying to figure out what had happened here. :) Haploidavey (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 ;-) Paul August 12:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@Haploidavey: User now blocked for 3 months, see User talk:AmarisMagic. Paul August 14:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Good, and thanks for the note. The name was familiar but rang the wrong bell. Three months hence, I'll be on the lookout (hm. This section has a nautical theme. Yo ho ho, and all that) Haploidavey (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@Haploidavey: Yeah it took awhile for the right bells to go clank in my head too ;-) Paul August 14:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Auge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Callisto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Auge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018[edit]

Kleuske and you are involved in sock puppetry and POV. Please refrain from edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lptx (talkcontribs) 23:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lptx. I'm nobodies sock, nor is anyone mine ;-) I've reverted your edit—which removed sourced content—from that article, exactly once (so far). You on the other hand are in violation of WP:3RR, and are editing that article against the prevailing editorial consensus, and are almost certainly headed for a block. Please stop. You should instead try to reach consensus on that article's talk page. Paul August 23:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Paul August visit the talk page - this is the common concern. Since you have not visited/read the issues at talk page and trying to be armchair analyst End of the discussion.Lptx (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I've visited and read that talk page some time ago. Paul August 01:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry at Arabic Numerals[edit]

Ongoing discussion against you at WP:SPI for Sock puppetry at Arabic Numerals.


Lptx (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. Paul August 23:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018[edit]

ANI close[edit]

I do not understand this close due to its terseness. Would please either elaborate it or withdraw it? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In my view nothing useful was going on there, nor did it seem to be going anywhere good. Moreover I saw nothing that would require the intervention of an administrator. Paul August 21:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Two admins weighed in and found problematic behavior. There was clutter in the back and forth, this is true. It was still unclear where it was going to go; many ANIs end up with the community deciding things (ANI is not only for admin intervention). Most importantly the behavior is continuing. Please unclose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
What behavior is continuing exactly? Diffs please. It's not clear to me what you think should happen, sanctions? That discussion seemed to have degenerated into you and Sandy bickering back and forth. And in my opinion you weren't doing yourself any good. Paul August 12:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes as I noted there I was aware it was becoming cluttered. It is hard to understand how you could ask "what kind of behavior" if you actually read the thread. I will let this go and refile if it goes on much longer with fresh diffs. I do not think the close was appropriate but I will let this be for now. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't ask "what kind of behaviour". You said "Most importantly the behavior is continuing", and I asked you to provide diffs of such "continuing" behavior, so I could understand what edits you were talking about. Could you please do that? Thanks in advance. Paul August 15:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This may be helpful, Paul. Here are the diffs of every edit between the time you closed the ANI, and Jytdog made this complaint to you.

SG contribs from the time of the closing of the ANI to the time of Jytdog's post at 22:17.

Colin's latest contribs at the time of Jytdog's post at 22:17.

If you find anything problematic, please let me know. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I will, thanks. Paul August 15:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I am sure that Colin is grateful to you for cluttering up and derailing the ANI. The diffs show Colin continuing the campaign and attacks on Doc James; especially the comment at Doc James TP. The over-the-top edge has been toned down which is why I am not going to AN to ask for a close review; I will be refiling if Colin ramps back up. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC) (perhaps this needed clarification Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC))
@Jytdog:. Did you see my last response just above? Could you please reply? Thanks. Paul August 15:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see my reply just above your post. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog:, I saw it but I don't see any diffs. Can you please specify (with diffs) any edits you find objectionable? I'd really appreciate it. Paul August 15:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks but I am not spending further time asking you to reverse your close. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: This no longer is about the ANI close. This is now about your—so far— unubstantiated accusations.
Above, you’ve accused, presumably Colin and one might reasonably infer SandyGeorgia, of “continuing” “problematic behavior.” I’ve asked you three times to provide diffs of such “continuing” behavior, and you’ve been either unable or unwilling to do so. Such accusations against fellow editors should not be made without evidence. I will ask you again, please provide diffs.
Look, it may be that when you look at the relevant edit histories you will find you were mistaken and that no such examples of inappropriate edits exist. That’s ok, we all make mistakes. But then you owe Colin and SandyGeorgia an apology. If however you still stand by your accusations, then you need to supply diffs. Not doing so would be inappropriate, and might warrant some further action.
So your only good choices would seem to be to provide diffs, or apologize.
Paul August 16:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I find your behavior here baffling. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_at_AN;_subsequent_admin_behavior. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


have left a note at Close at AN; subsequent admin behavior, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Two things I'm noticing @Ozzie10aaaa:
  1. The world outside of WP:MED does not exist? Please check your calendar.
  2. You could benefit from what I have been trying to tell @Jytdog: for months. Talk TO the person you have a disagreement with first, before escalating your conflicts. (Still waiting for that diff from Jytdog, above.) Ozzie, did it occur to you to check @Colin:'s talk page? And then maybe, go leave that Serial Guy a note about templating the regulars. Also, WP:AGF is a really good page. Lest subtlety is lost on you, please enjoy your April Fools' Day. It has been a matter of huge celebration on Wikipedia for years.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).


Administrator changes

added 331dotCordless LarryClueBot NG
removed Gogo DodoPb30SebastiankesselSeicerSoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news


  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.


  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Size of talk page[edit]

Prior to my posting this comment, your talk page is 137,038 bytes. Please archive some (most) of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Telephus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calyx (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018[edit]


Hi, Paul August! As a mathematician, could you chime in Talk:Proportion, I would like to create an entry for this concept and I have been consistently shot down. Thanks. Mikus (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).


Administrator changes

added None
removed ChochopkCoffeeGryffindorJimpKnowledge SeekerLankiveilPeridonRjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.



  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eurypylus (son of Telephus), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Machaon and Temple of Asclepius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Eurypylus (of Cyrene) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lycaon
Eurypylus (son of Telephus) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Memnon

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Mesopotamian deities[edit]

Hello! I was wondering, in light of your work on the articles List of Greek mythological figures and Twelve Olympians, if you would be interested in commenting on the nomination page for my article List of Mesopotamian deities, which I have nominated for "Featured List" status. I know it is a different culture than you usually write about, but I thought I would let you know about it just in case you had any input. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Katolophyromai, at first glance your list looks fantastic. But yes it is well outside my area of expertise. But I might look more at it later. As to my "work" on List of Greek mythological figures, I take no credit/blame for that, as I've only made a few minor edits there. I have rewritten the introductory sections of Twelve Olympians, but I take no responsibility for the actual list entries themselves; they need to be reworked, and are especially in need of sources! Paul August 15:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eurypylus (son of Telephus), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Combustion scientist[edit]

I notice that you reverted an anonymous editor (not me) who added von Neumann to the category of combustion scientists, for lack of a source. But where, exactly, do you expect a person to place a citation, if the only thing an edit does is to add a category template? I personally found the edit to be quite reasonable when I first saw it a few days ago. Macrae's chapter 9 (The Calculating Exploder, 1937-43) has a lot to say about von Neumann's work on combustion and explosions, etc., for various government agencies. And of course, von Neumann's work on the implosion method of the plutonium bomb is quintessentially about (very rapid) combustion. So, while I will not try to revert you on this myself, I think you might want to think about putting the edit back. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If no mention of combustion science is made in the article, then I don't think the category belongs. Paul August 15:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
From the article (Fluid Dynamics section) -- "the discovery of the classic flow solution to blast waves, and the co-discovery of the ZND detonation model of explosives. During the 1930s, Von Neumann became an authority on the mathematics of shaped charges," etc. Is this not sufficient? Eleuther (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
What I'd really like to see is some reliable source calling von Neumann a "combustion scientist", and some mention of that in the article, before adding that category. Just because someone does work related to combustion, it doesn't necessarily make them a combustion scientist. Paul August 16:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've evidently encountered yet another Wikipedian-who-is-never-wrong. Discussion closed, you're not worth talking to further. Eleuther (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. Paul August 16:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
To be more precise (sorry to revive this), you seem to be saying that a scientist such as von Neumann, who made basic and authoritative contributions to the science of combustion, should not be considered to be a combustion scientist, because there is no cited source that explicitly calls him a "combustion scientist." Is that right? That's nonsense. It's just you, floundering around to find a way to avoid admitting you make a mistake. Eleuther (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I would settle for a cited source which says he did combustion science. I don't know anything about "combustion science", I'm a mathematician. And I think of von Neumann as primarily a mathematician, whose mathematical work has many applications to many fields, but that doesn't make him a practitioner of each of those fields. That's just my opinion, though. I'm often wrong, and I might be wrong here. You have a different opinion. But really, neither of our opinions matter. What matters is what reliable sources say. And as an aside please stop with the personal attacks. Paul August 19:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, stupid-head, I will stop with the personal attacks. The article already describes some contributions to the science of combustion, as I already pointed out. So there's no need for another source. Instead, I think you would need to provide a source to the effect that being an "authority on the mathematics of shaped charges" does not constitute a contribution to combustion science. By this I mean some source other than your own acclaimed ignorance of the matter (I don't know anything about "combustion science"). Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eleuther: I've copied this discussion to Talk:John von Neumann#Should von Neumann be categorized as a combustion scientist?, please add further discussion there. Thanks. Paul August 11:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]


Had already done that. Bleucheeses (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August 19:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I could really use some asssistance. Bleucheeses (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
What with? Paul August 22:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I've edited on here for years. I think I am starting to see why Wikipedia has difficulties getting enough editors and may not be taken seriously overall. People on here are fairly ridiculous. Bleucheeses (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Many editors are good, some are not, not sure I can help you with that. Paul August 23:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
If not you, then who? I could look for other people, not hopeful about it. Bleucheeses (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what it is exactly you want form me. Can you be more specific? Paul August 12:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of combustion scientists category[edit]

Hi, please comment, if you wish, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 29#Category:Combustion scientists. Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Paul August. I think the CfD page is not really the proper place to pursue your beef with me. I suggest the following change. I will modify my comment to say "most of" rather than "all" (to satisfy Trovatore), and to remove the word "toxic" (for you). I will also remove the three subsequent replies, on the grounds that these are things that people don't want to have to read on a CfD page. But I will only do this if you and Trovatore agree that it's okay. I've already apologized to Trovatore for the factual error, and I apologize to you now for the use of the word "toxic." I hope that you will agree to this change. Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Eleuther, I've already replied to your suggestion at Trovatore's talk page. Paul August 20:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Paul August. I think, in general, it would be a good idea to avoid polluting other users' talk pages with your dispute with me. So I will answer here, instead of there. Nothing in my comment claimed that I was not one of the disputants (clearly I am one). And I didn't say anyone's comments should be "discounted," I was only suggesting that they should all be taken in context. Eleuther (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Eleuther, thanks for responding here, as I asked. And I'm sorry that I hadn't noticed your edit above before I replied on Trovatore's talk page. This is what you wrote: "Note that all the comments so far are by disputants in the toxic discussion re von Neumann, and so should perhaps be discounted". So you did in fact suggest that editor's comments be "discounted". Paul August 22:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, I did use the word, but nothing suggests that I meant it to exclude my own comments. (And you should say editors', not editor's -- sorry to mention it, but stuff like that bugs me.) Eleuther (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eleuther: Yes well, as I said, I didn't think you wanted to exclude your comments. The question is whose comments did you want to exclude? Paul August 23:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Geez, why do you go to such a convoluted effort to misread what I wrote. I was simply saying that all the comments, including my own, should be taken in the context of the dispute. Eleuther (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eleuther: Look, perhaps that's what you meant to write, but that's not what you wrote. And I didn't misread what you wrote. I don't think calling the discussion "toxic" and saying some unspecified editors who were "disputants" in that discussion, should have their comments "discounted" could be read by anyone as anything other than as insulting. You've apologized for using the word "toxic" and I've thanked you for that—of course many other editors who see (or saw) your use of that word, will probably not see your apology. But please don't undo your apology by now saying that what you wrote wasn't insulting. Paul August 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Back off a bit please. I wrote that "nothing suggests that I meant it to exclude my own comments." By this, I clearly meant that nothing suggests that I meant that that my own comments were not also coming from a disputant, and so should be discounted on the same basis as the others. Your idea that I'm claiming a special status for my own comments, is false. Eleuther (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eleuther: I'll take you at your word when you say you weren't trying to claim any special status for your comments. Fine. But can't you see how what you wrote would be interpreted that way? (I mean, one doesn't usually suggest that their own comments should be discounted) And even though you weren't claiming special status, your comment was still insulting to the other editors involved in that discussion. By the way, have you apologized to any of them? It would be a nice gesture of good will. Look, I think you are a well meaning editor, who has gotten off on the wrong foot now with several other editors. What I'm trying to do here is help you understand why, and how to avoid doing so in the future. You've apologized to me, and I've accepted your apology. I bear you no ill will. Shall we let bygones be bygones? (offers olive branch...) Paul August 14:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The phrase "all the comments so far" clearly includes my own comments. It's not a matter of taking me at my word. The phrase sez what it sez. It can only be interpreted otherwise by someone who is willfully looking for grounds for an attack. Eleuther (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eleuther: So your saying it's not possible that someone might think that "all the comments do far" might mean "all the comments so far (except mine of course)"? In any case, even if one were to understand what you wrote to mean "all the comments so far (including mine)", as I said above the comment was still insulting. Paul August 15:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
You've lost me again. Where is the insult? Is it in the use of the word "disputant?" The word is simply descriptive. Also (and you may take this as an insult if you wish), you should have written "you're" instead of "your", as the second word of your comment, if you want to be taken seriously. Eleuther (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eleuther: The insult, as I though I'd made clear, is in calling the discussion "toxic", and by inference, at least some of the editors in that discussion. Paul August 16:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Though? Are you so drunk you can't type? I already proposed removing the word "toxic" from the comment, with your approval, but you declined to give your approval. And anyhow, calling a dispute toxic is not an insult to any of the participants. It just means (here) that they are no longer listening to each other, but are simply exchanging impassioned assertions. Eleuther (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Eleuther: That you offered to remove "toxic" doesn't make your original statement any less insulting. What's more you're obviously now trying to be insulting (You should really take onboard WP:NPA). Paul August 17:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Paul, please move your comment somewhere more appropriate, and I will respond to it. I should be allowed to record my vote in peace, without having it subject to attack. (Just as I should be allowed to leave a message on another user's talk page, without having it attacked.) Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not attacking your vote. I'm commenting on it. And so it seems the most appropriate place for it. Where do you want me to move it to? Paul August 19:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
How about here? I'll reply here, and then, if you wish, you can republish the thread somewhere else, such as in a Comment in the CfD, but please not as part of anyone's vote. Eleuther (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The CFD page is a discussion not a vote. My comment is a reply to your comment, and is just where it ought to be. Moving it here makes no sense at all. It is intended to be read by everyone who looks at that discussion. In particular it is meant to be read by the closer of that discussion, so that they will be able to make a more informed closure. As you can see by looking at other such discussions this is standard practice. Paul August 21:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Okey, never mind. Eleuther (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Paul, I would welcome your response to my reply to you on the CfD page, which is where you seem to think the discussion should be taking place. (Please ignore the angry interjections by Bialy, which seem to be unrelated to the issue that's being considered.) Thanks in advance for your response. Eleuther (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Paul. I would welcome a response, regarding the meaning of WP:CATDEF, before the CfD discussion comes to a close. Can you do that? Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Eleuther, I think the meaning of CATDEF is clear, and I think I've said all I need to say there about it. I don't understand your argument. But I think you are misunderstanding what CATDEF says. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree? I will offer here an analogy for you think about. While there are certainly such things as the science of lightbulbs, and the science of telephones, would you think it appropriate to categorize Thomas Edison as a "lightbulb scientist" or Alexander Graham Bell as a "telephone scientist"? And if not why not? In any case I will try to write up a response for you there. Paul August 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Paul, there's nothing inherently wrong with the term "lightbulb scientist" -- its meaning is plain, anyone reading it would understand what it means. And if Edison isn't one, who is? If such a category existed on Wikipedia, Edison would obviously qualify for it. I agree that such a category probably shouldn't exist, but not because the term itself is somehow illegitimate, or because of the paucity of sources describing people with the exact words "lightbulb scientist." (If there's language in WP:CAT that supports such grounds, can you please point it out? Please please? I honestly can't find it.) In other words, the category doesn't seem to violate WP:CAT, per se. However, it would seem to violate WP:OVERCAT, and perhaps others. (I will now embark on my response on the CfD page.) Eleuther (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I think most people would read "lightbulb scientist" as naming a profession. In which case, CATDEF would require sources assigning that profession, by name, to Edison. Because of this natural reading as naming a profession, naming the category of scientists whose work is related to lightbulbs as "lightbulb scientists", would be confusing, at best. (See my reply at the CFD). Paul August 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Paul, thanks. I myself think most people are not fools. There's no real profession of "combustion scientist." At least there's no support on Wikipedia for the existence of such a profession, that I know of. There's certainly no article with that title. However, both combustion and scientist are long-established terms, with long WP articles supporting them. So I think that most people would read the term in the plain and obvious way, as a descriptive term combining these two long-established concepts. No currently paid-up membership card is required. Eleuther (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy Adminship[edit]

Wikipedia Administrator.svg Wishing Paul August a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Kpgjhpjm (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Kpgjhpjm (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Paul August 17:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).


Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer sonAliveFreeHappyCenariumLupoMichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.


  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about context[edit]

Where you made your proposal please look above it to where I added in a hatnote "Actual dialog in full, no selective editing". Not much to read. People seem to be taking things out of context. Was it just that one comment that irritates people so, or was there something more? Dream Focus 12:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Not just one comment. At the beginning of the section Hijiri 88 gives diffs for a dozen examples, of personal attacks you've made against him. Have you read them? I've seen others. In addition there is this dicussion, linked to by Tarage. Paul August 17:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
That was 8 years ago. Nothing to do with anything now. And I did listen to people who had valid complaints and reworded things. Anyway, I didn't respond to every single thing Hijiri said, because I assumed people would just click on the link and read things in context and realize it all nonsense. Most of them in the first section of his complaints are from the same conversation I put in the hatnote and did clarify.
As for the next section, if someone shows up at that many AFDs and elsewhere just to repeat the same lies about someone and/or a wikiproject, refusing to stop doing that, of course I respond to him. And he followed me around constantly, even yesterday after starting the recent bit, he decides to look up an article I edited previously and remove information I had added about their sales figures [4], I then going and finding a reference for updated sales figures to put back there. He has never edited that article before and the edit summary he put there isn't something he'd usually do, not how he wrote it. Would me getting links to over a dozen places where he showed up after I edited an article just to edit after me, make any difference in this case? Also one of his links [5] show me telling him off for stalking me and then making a comment on my talk page just to irritate me I assume. I responded to ask him to stop stalking, he clearly violating WP:stalking there. I also mentioned in my reply his edit summary he used when proposed deleting a perfectly valid article of mine [6], he making ridiculous claims there, which in the AFD discussion everyone agreed it passed the WP:GNG, and he withdrew his nomination. He has on multiple times claimed it was WP:Pointy when in fact it was not. He has stated he claims I did it to take deleted material from the other article and put it there, which makes no sense at all, saying that in the withdraw statement of the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai Grandma, and even discussing this on a talk page [7]. He seems to believe people are out to get him. Dream Focus 18:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Auge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).


Administrator changes

added PbsouthwoodTheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed AndrevanDougEVulaKaisaLTony FoxWilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed AndrevanEVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon (Codemirror-icon.png) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.


  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Being reverted by you...[edit]

Is like being thanked by an ordinary editor! ;-)

But seriously, your change to R & R sent me down a style rabbit hole. To capitalize, or not to capitalize, that is the question: Whether 'tis in the article to write "River X" or "river X". Is there an MOS entry on point here? Also, is the lower case river specific to this case? I did a google scholar search and found examples of both. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It just looked wrong to me. Regards, Paul August 18:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy first edit day[edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, Paul August. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Paul August 14:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)