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
Archives

Individual archives:

Contents

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)

Demigod[edit]

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)

Meanwhile[edit]

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]

Greetings,

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)

Pointy?[edit]

Why not an image like this instead?

[1]. 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)

citevar[edit]

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)

Pandion[edit]

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).

ANEWSicon.png

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • 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).

ANEWSicon.png

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

Arbitration


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).

ANEWSicon.png

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.

Arbitration


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!


Sincerely,


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).

ANEWSicon.png

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.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • 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.92.9.144.164 (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)

hi[edit]

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).

ANEWSicon.png

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

Arbitration

  • 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.

Miscellaneous

  • 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]

Proportion[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).

ANEWSicon.png

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.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • 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]

Already[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).

ANEWSicon.png

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.

Arbitration

  • 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.

Miscellaneous


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 [2], 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 [3] 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 [4], 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 [5]. 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).

ANEWSicon.png

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.

Miscellaneous

  • 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 proper...er(?) 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)
Face-smile.svg
Thanks. Paul August 14:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Hellenic actions[edit]

Anti-Hellenic actions in all articles of all the Battles between Greeks (Macedonians and Athenians) and Persians or Romans. The anti-Hellenicists claim that there was no Greece back then but only Athens or Macedonia, meaning that there is a possibility Athens or Macedonia could not be Greek states. They are doing propaganda.

The Signpost: 31 July 2018[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaLYmblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch.[edit]

... for the correction on Cyclops
Your welcome. Paul August 20:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Question ...[edit]

Hello Paul August , I am not an expert of Wikipedia , so I do not know if this will work. My name is Cosimo Franco (called Franco ) Manni, PhD student in theology at King's College London and I would like to understand why your initial lines of 'Unified Field Theory' entry on Wikipedia were taken off, and if you had a conscious memory of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason when you wrote them. My email address is : cosimo.manni@kcl.ac.uk. Thanks. Kind regards Framco

Uh ... I'm not sure what you are talking about. I don't remember ever making any edits to our article; unified field theory. Paul August 22:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You have a fearsomely long contents list, but...[edit]

...I am going to add to it. Following on from this and then this I wonder if you as an ex(?) Arb have the time to check over DanielPenfield's contributions and presence and compare them to a certain Betacommand? I have the same sense of unease as I had with Wierwith. In reading the December 201 discussions you were part of, I note that sock activity/admission was an area of contention. I am, myself, far too away from the project to remember how to do such stuff - it took me most of an afternoon to get to this point - and, honestly, I do not have the stomach for it. Anyhoo, thanks for reading. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

After a brief look at their edit histories, I'm not seeing much of a connection. Paul August 19:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the peek. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018[edit]

Thanks for your edit at Athena![edit]

Thanks for this. When I wrote that, I could not help but feel that "biological" was the wrong word, but, at the time, I could not think of a better one. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You're very welcome.Paul August 23:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Telephus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roman and Alcmaeon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion to be canceled for defamation of a person[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Massimo_Chiacchio_1997/Archive Hello, can you help me to delete this discussion, I am the character in question and I had created many Wikipedia accounts in the past and in this discussion someone mentioned my name with my date of birth and appears on search engines, someone can give me a hand to prevent my first and last name from appearing here? by Max 15:59, 2 september 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.201.200 (talk)

Changes to Thucydides Article[edit]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your comment. I do agree that the changes made to the Thucydides article should be discussed on the talk page and I wanted to reach out and hopefully come to a consensus on this. I would like to mention that the statements I provided were actually taken from a scholarly analysis on the History provided by Moses Finley, am accredited scholar, and all were cited. In the spirit of sharing knowledge, I don't think there is any harm in providing an expert analysis or another perspective on the subject. If anything, I feel it gives a more wholesome understanding to a reader that might not have as much exposure to this topic. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Thanks. Nbhard (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nbhard. Thanks for being willing to discuss this. I'm familiar with the work you cited. The most serious issue I had with your edits were that they copied long passages directly from the cited work without quotations. This is potentially a serious problem, raising possible questions of copyright infringement and/or plagiarism. If you want to add content similar to what you added, you either need to use quotations, or rephrase the content in your own words. See for example Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Paul August 13:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Paul, thank you for bringing this to my attention as I do agree this could be a potential problem. I will be sure to use quotations and or summarize the information with originality in the future. Thanks Nbhard (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added None
removed AsterionCrisco 1492KFKudpungLizRandykittySpartaz
renamed Optimist on the runVoice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added AmorymeltzerMr. StradivariusMusikAnimalMSGJTheDJXaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added JustlettersandnumbersL235
removed BgwhiteHorsePunchKidJ GrebKillerChihuahuaRami RWinhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678Deryck ChanOshwahPharosRagesossRitchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero NativeForeigner SnowolfXeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Rise of Macedon --> Hellenic or Greek Kingdom[edit]

New WP:CONSENSUS Building process... "Greek" or "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence based on sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talkcontribs) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Gaia[edit]

Hello,

I tried to add a section on the Gaia page for "references in popular culture." You reverted my change about Gaia's appearance as a character name in Captain Planet. I know that many other mythological pages have some kind of section that shows how that character or character's name has had an impact on popular culture, and I think this is a useful section on those pages-- especially when trying to teach young people about the relevance of mythology in today's world. I wonder if you'd consider reverting the changes.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdicoccosix (talkcontribs) 14:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bdicoccosix: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, in order for something to warrant mention in an article, it must possess long-term encyclopedic notability, meaning that we need to have reasonable cause to believe that the entry will still be notable centuries or even millennia from now. There are some things that possess obvious long-term notability, such as the portrayal of Gaia in Hesiod's Theogony, which has remained notable for the past 2,500 years and will almost certainly still be notable a hundred years from now. Other items of information, such as the entry you added about Gaia's appearance in Captain Planet, are more dubious. The best measures of encyclopedic notability are: 1) The subject of the entry must have significantly altered popular perception of the subject of the article. 2) The subject must be discussed in reliable, scholarly sources about the subject of the article. Most "In popular culture" entries lack encyclopedic notability. Furthermore, all information added to Wikipedia must be cited to reliable, secondary, scholarly sources. Captainplanetandtheplaneteers.shoutwiki.com is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. I hope this answer is helpful and that it alleviates some of your confusion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but is there no place to list modern references to Greek mythology on Wikipedia? I figured stating it at the end did not detract from the rest of the article. I get that the source that I provided was garbage and I apologize for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdicoccosix (talkcontribs) 12:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bdicoccosix: I see that you have added back the mention of the Captain Planet character Gaia, with a better source (thanks for that, you may want to add that source to the article on the TV show). However, while that source is sufficient to establish the existence of the character in that TV show, it says nothing at all regarding the significance of that cartoon character for the mythological Gaia. Here are some quotes from relevant Wikipedia policies:
  • To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as of 03:19, 4 October 2018‎)
  • An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. (WP:PROPORTION, as of 09:11, 2 October 2018‎)
Unless you can find a reliable source which discusses the significance of this cartoon character for the mythological character, I think that the mention of the cartoon character should be removed.
Regards, Paul August 15:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks for fixing the rest of the Classical Greece article -[edit]

- my bad. 50.111.19.178 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Paul August 18:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018[edit]

How much time must elapse?[edit]

How much time must elapse so that it no longer falls under the heading WP:UNDUE? I am just asking, because there was a similar study 15 years ago with the same results, for that see Davis-Kimball & Joachim Burger - [6], and another one by Guba et al. 2011. --Alperich (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no specific timeframe. But it has to be enough to have been discussed and accepted by scholars as at least a significant minority opinion. Paul August 15:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no other opinion beside the one I have quoted. Since over the past 14 years. Science Advances is, just btw, a peer-reviewed journal, which was even quoted by a Ph.D. scholar in the Biology Department at Grand Valley State University. More than this is not possible in a genetics topic. The only opinion so far recorded was that of Davis-Kimball & Joachim Burger. There was even a tv documentary, first broadcasted by the German state television ZDF in 2004. There is just a tiny detail with this. The funding for new expeditions has been discontinued and the topic was kept silent. I'll take this to the board.--Alperich (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. Paul August 19:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The decision was: "no red flag". Can we add them now? --Alperich (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not disputing whether the sources your trying to use are reliable or not. That's the question you asked at the "Reliable sources/Noticeboard". Rather it's a question of weight. Is that 2018 study significant enough to warrant mention in the article. If other writers begin to discuss the article in their works then it might become noteworthy enough to include but I don't don't think it is now. Paul August 22:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Writer B debates about Writer A. Is this what you mean? If yes, we can surely warrant mention in the article. --Alperich (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
No this is not what I mean. I can find no mention of Amazons anywhere in "Writer A". Paul August 16:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
But there is mention of Amazons by "writer B" in reference to "writer A"s study. So, my point stands. --Alperich (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's what you tried to insert into the article:

A new study by Krzewińska 2018, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances, sparked a new debate on the origins of the Amazons. The study revealed that Amazons may trace their ancestry through female lines to an east Eurasian origin. [1]"

References

  1. ^ "Solving the origins of ancient Eurasian Nomadic Warriors with Genetics", Alexey G. Nikitin, Ph.D., Biology Department, Grand Valley State University, October 3, 2018. The article on the genetic ancestry of ancient Eurasian steppe nomads entitled “"Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads” appears online in Science Advances on October 3, 2018.
You are asserting two things:
1. It "revealed that Amazons may trace their ancestry through female lines to an east Eurasian origin" But I see no mention
2. It "sparked a new debate on the origins of the Amazons.

But the Krzewińska 2018 article, makes no mention of Amazons, so it can't be used to support ether of these two things. So leaves just the Nikitin's article "Solving the origins of ancient Eurasian Nomadic Warriors with Genetics". Where was this article peer-reviewed? And what is the evidence that Nikitin's assertions are significant enough to warrant mention in the article. And if, as is being asserted, the Krzewińska article "sparked a new debate on the origins of the Amazons" where is this debate? Published evidence for such a debate would be useful. Paul August 18:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding point 1: You have to prove that Sarmatian female warriors are not the Amazons first.
Regarding point 2: "The current study re-ignites the debate about the Amazons, but geneticists do not meddle in the matters of folklore. While archaeogenetic research cannot resolve questions of cultural customs, it can help getting a more comprehensive insight into the life history of humans behind the culture."
Regarding your question where Nikitin's article has been peer-reviewed: At Grand Valley State University, Department of Biology. Can we add them now? --Alperich (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry still no. Paul August 14:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Did you discovered a new problem? --Alperich (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
No the same problems, since your comments above don't adequately address the problems I've mentioned. Simply appearing on a university web page does not mean it's been peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed usually means being published in a peer reviewed journal. But even if Nikitin's article was peer-reviewed I don't find it sufficient to support the assertions being made about Krzewińska article. And even if we had sufficient justification for the assertions made about all this, it is entirely too recent for there have been sufficient time for the scholarly consensus to have accepted all this as true. And even if scholarly consensus had accepted all this as true, just because something is true, does not mean that it is significant enough to warrant mention in the article. Paul August 19:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Paul August. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer sonRandykittySpartaz
removed BosonDaniel J. LeivickEfeEsanchez7587Fred BauderGarzoMartijn HoekstraOrangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago[edit]

Awesome
Cscr-featured.svg
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August 16:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


Epicurus[edit]

This is not an interpretation but a direct quote, "it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly." This applies not only to one deciding how to live but to others, too, with whom he interacts. He benefits by others treating him better than they would if they did not live pleasantly. Kolyvansky (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What you say about the quote is an interpretaion unssupported by any source. Paul August 20:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Nope, it takes minimal thinking to see it. Others do.[1] Kolyvansky (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Henry Epps, The Universal Golden Rule, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (July 17, 2012) p.27

Your objective opinion is needed[edit]

Hi. It's been a long time, I think, since we've spoken. I hope everything is going well. Years ago, you participated in some of the initiatives intended to resolve the problem of a serial policy violator. For some time now, I've been having trouble with an editor who's been exhibiting similar persistent behavior, and he seems to be escalating. I could really use your help. I've outlined the evidence of his behavior here. A summary list of his behavior is located near the bottom of that post, beneath the heading "Summary", in case you want to read that first. If you could offer your objective opinion on that evidence, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

You 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/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 21:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources for Pages[edit]

Good day sir! I would like to ask what is the name of the site(s) or book(s) where I can find sources related to 1. Scholia on Argonautica, 2. Scholia on Iliad, 3. Scholia on Odyssey, 4. Tzetzes on Lycophron, 5. Eustathius on Iliad, and etc. I already searched the internet but couldn't find where these sources came from because I wanted to check or cross-reference the said authors for verification purposes in improving the pages related to Greek mythology. Thank you and hoping for your response. Markx121993 (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as far as I know, none of these are available online. You might try asking this question here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. I think that most of these scholia are only available in Greek. A useful guide to various scholia is Ancient Greek Scholarship by Elenor Dickey available online here: [7]. Good luck. If you find any good online sources for any of these, please let me know.
By the way, if you use a source that cites these scholia, you need to cite that source, and not the scholia itself, unless you've also consulted the scholia directly yourself, and have independently verified that the scholia says what your original source says it does. So for example, if Writer A says that, according Scholia B, Mary was the daughter of John. Then it's OK to write:
John had a daughter named Mary.[1]
  1. ^ Writer A.
But it is NOT OK to write:
John had a daughter named Mary.[1]
  1. ^ Scholia B.
Unless you've read what Scholia B says yourself. OK?
Paul August 16:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018[edit]

Seasonal Greetings[edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Paul August, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Everedux (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks. Paul August 15:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added EnterpriseyJJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Preferable title? Something about orig-year?[edit]

Hello. If I may ask, which title do you think is preferable? Also, I thought about adding |orig-year=, but apparently this book contains different essays written in different years....?

  • Averroes (1953). Crawford, F. Stuart, ed. Commentariumin Aristotelis De Anima. Mediaeval Academy of America.
  • Averroes (1953). Crawford, F. Stuart, ed. Commentarium Magnum in Aristotelis De Anima Libros. Mediaeval Academy of America. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The second, see this Google Books search. Paul August 11:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks...Happy Chinese New Year! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Daedalus[edit]

What was the reason for the removal of your last edit on the Wikipedia page, on Daedalus? DaedalusGodOfWisdom (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The content you added contained no sources, please see WP:SOURCES. Paul August 10:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I see, I will put it back with references. DaedalusGodOfWisdom (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)