User talk:Paul August/Archive27

A barnstar for you!

	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

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 ^{(T • C)} 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

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

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 ...

.. 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Pointy?

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

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

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!

	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

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!

		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?

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

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

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

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!

		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

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)

ANI Experiences survey

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:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

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.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

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

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)

Edits at Mathematics

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)

Getting to Philosophy

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)