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.
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
Hello, Paul August. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Dear Paul August, On 10 Aug 2019 you blocked my addition on the Tartarus entry.
Your reason stated was: (I) created a "now unintelligent sentence fragment". It would
very kind of you to EDIT this "now unintelligent sentence fragment" and replace it with an intelligent sentence instead of deleting it. If not, how about offering some
academic tutoring that would unblock my info? Miistermagico (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You misquoted me. What I said was "as having created a now unintelligible sentence fragment". (Unintelligible means unable to be understood, unitelligent means something entirely different.) Your edit left the following:
In the New Testament, the noun Tartarus does not occur but tartaroo (ταρταρόω, "throw to Tartarus"), a shortened form of the classical Greek verb kata-tartaroo ("throw down to Tartarus").
That's not a sentence, it doesn't make grammatical sense. The original version of that text read:
In the New Testament, the noun Tartarus does not occur but tartaroo (ταρταρόω, "throw to Tartarus"), a shortened form of the classical Greek verb kata-tartaroo ("throw down to Tartarus"), does appear in 2 Peter2:4.
It says that, while the Greek text does not contain the Greek noun Tartarus, it does contain the Greek verb tartaroo which means "throw to Tartarus". What new info are you trying to add? Paul August☎00:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your recent removal of an edit I made on the Artemis page, although I did not create the Legacy section I believe it should remain. The use of historic names in modern day branding and communications, specifically with NASA's new mission and Artemis the coffee company, is important in keeping the history of the original source alive in the public's mind. This information is relevant and I believe an edit to correct any lack of sources would have been more appropriate in this scenario. The two on taxonomy and astonomy do seem quite thin, however NASA's use of Artemis will be an extremely popular search in the coming years as we come closer to the mission. The content of the Artemis coffee reference is also fully factual and citations were included to validate this section. CascaraBarbara (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CascaraBarbara: Notice that another editor has also removed your addition to that section. I don't believe the comnpany Artemis Cold Brew Coffee, is notable enough to be mentioned in that article. If you wish to discuss this further, please open a discussion on Talk:Artemis, thanks. Paul August☎13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to visit my talk page and comment on the discussion regarding the other editor's revision. The very definition of an encyclopedia is to provide information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject as possible. This company references to more than just the name of Artemis and that why I believe it is notable enough to be included in this article. As previously mentioned, I believe an edit for incorrect information would have been more acceptable. If you disagreed with the notability of this information you should have opened a discussion in the first place instead of simply removing. CascaraBarbara (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My revert of your edit without first opening a discussion on the talk page, reflects the long established standard editorial practice described at WP:BRD: "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus". That is, when you make and edit (i.e. your adding the company info) and it gets reverted by another editor (i.e. like me removing the content) you should not revert again (i.e. as you did by adding back the company info), but instead you who should have, at that point, begun a discussion, and not have readded your preferred content, without establishing an editorial consensus. Paul August☎14:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I have mostly left Wikipedia and I am no longer writing articles, I still pop over here now and then to see what is going on. This is to thank you for all your excellent contributions over the years, including your ongoing work on the articles Hecatoncheires and Cyclopes. You are one of the users whom I have most admired over the course of my time here on account of your tireless and devoted efforts to keep the articles on ancient Greece and Greek mythology in good order. I have no idea what Wikipedia would be like if you were to leave. —Katolophyromai (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Paul August. There seems to be an error in the transition of the article to its new title. If you click on the talk page for Cyclopes you get Talk:Cyclopes (disambiguation). You're doing a great job with your great contributions to this page. It's been fascinating to watch the progress. - Quarterpinion (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor, but you have undone a number of my recent attempted edits, as well as those of others attempting similar edits, and I am uncertain how to proceed when it is a matter about which I have personal knowledge that does not yet have a public source. Are you able to provide guidance? Thank you.
HudPix (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HudPix:, Hi. Sure I'm happy to provide you with what guidance I can. We can't rely on personal knowledge. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be able to be sourced to reliable published sources (see WP:Sources and WP:RS for definitions and details). Let me know if you have any more questions, and I will try to answer them. Paul August☎19:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the PA and putting a target on your own back. Sorry about that. I hope you have a great weekend and a great Thanksgiving. Lightburst (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August, I have been contributing since 2006, mostly by reading and revising articles. Over the years, particularly in 2011, 2017 and 2018 I read heavily on several sources and criticized several articles that relate to Greek mythology. I am interested in sources and truth but also in structure and elegance when it comes to articles on Wikipedia. I read and commented on a variety of Greek mythology articles and, in some cases, you provided feedback. I understand that we share interest on a few subjects and primarily on Greek mythology to which I dedicated a section of my personal website. I uploaded a variety of documents, currently 9 genealogical trees and 25 paraphrased stories of gods and heroes that compare different sources as well as 2 summaries that compare a variety of mythologies. I created 6 more stories that have been in the making for a while. I would like to know if you would be able to comment on some statements I came across on Wikipedia that I was unable to verify because I could not find a source for them.
In the article on Heracles under the "Birth and childhood" section I read this:
"Fear of Hera's revenge led Alcmene to expose the infant Heracles, but he was taken up and brought to Hera by his half-sister Athena, who played an important role as protectress of heroes. Hera did not recognize Heracles and nursed him out of pity. Heracles suckled so strongly that he caused Hera pain, and she pushed him away. Her milk sprayed across the heavens and there formed the Milky Way. But with divine milk, Heracles had acquired supernatural powers. Athena brought the infant back to his mother, and he was subsequently raised by his parents.[23]"
Reference 23 points to "Diodorus Siculus' Bibliotheca Historica (Book IV, Ch. 9)".
I read the passage of Diodorus Siculus at Book IV 9.6 and I do not see any explanation on how the Milky Way was created. Do you think it's pure fabrication or that is explained in some other source?
In Greek mythology, the Milky Way was formed after the trickster god Hermes suckled the infant Heracles at the breast of Hera, the queen of the gods, while she was asleep.[1][2] When Hera awoke, she tore Heracles away from her breast and splattered her breast milk across the heavens.[1][2] In another version of the story, Athena, the patron goddess of heroes, tricked Hera into suckling Heracles voluntarily,[1][2] but he bit her nipple so hard that she flung him away, spraying milk everywhere.[1][2]
^ abcdPache, Corinne Ondine (2010). "Hercules". In Gargarin, Michael; Fantham, Elaine (eds.). Ancient Greece and Rome. Vol. 1: Academy-Bible. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 400. ISBN978-0-19-538839-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Both cited sources seem reliable, so I think we can accept that there was such a story. However, neither Leeming nor Pache (as far as I can tell) cite any ancient sources, so where this story comes from I don't know. Leeming does cite Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, vol. 2, pp. 90-91. When I get home later today I will look in Graves, to see what he says. Paul August☎10:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August, thank you for the information. That is my problem: I cannot link the story of the Milky Way to any ancient source which is typically where I want to go. ICE77 (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now had a quick look at Graves, pp. 90-91—and by the way, a word of warning, Graves needs to be taken with a considerable grain of salt, he is not a professional scholar of mythology, and his The Greek Myths contains a lot of creative synthesis, which does not always reflect exactly what the ancient sources actually say, which also means that if Leeming is basing his account solely on Graves (which is the only source he cites) then I think we have to discount to some extent what Leeming says also. In any case, Graves distinguishes, per the quote from our Milky Way given above, two main versions, one involving Athena (as in Diodorus) and the other Hermes, and he also provides ancient sources for each. For Athena, he cites: Diodorus Siculus 6.9; Tzetzes, On Lycophron 1327; Pausanias, 9.25.2; while for Hermes: Eratosthenes, Casterisms 44; Hyginus, Poetic Astronomy 2.43; "Ptolemy Hepaestios, quoted by Photius p. 477"; and Diodorus Siculus 6.10. I'll do some more looking when I get a chance. Meanwhile you might look at:
Hard, Robin (transl.), Eratosthenes and Hyginus: Constellation Myths, with Aratus's Phaenomena (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) ISBN978-0-19-871698-3
Paul August, thanks for the additional comments. I will look at each source. When you say "Diodorus Siculus 6.9" and "Diodorus Siculus 6.10" what book are you referring to?
Sorry, that should have been Diodorus Siculus 4.9 and 4.10, so Book 4, chapters 9 and 10. These are the sections of Diodorus that Graves cites, 4.9 you've already seen, per above. However, I've just looked at Diodorus 4.10, and I don't see anything relevant there, so Graves seems to be a mistaken about the second Diodorus cite. Paul August☎21:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources that include Athena in the story: Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV 9.1-10.1), Lycophron (Alexandra, 1327) and Pausanias (Description of Greece, 9.25.2).
Then I looked at the sources that include Hermes in the story: Eratosthenes (Catasterismi, 44), Hyginus (Poetic Astronomy, 2.43), Ptolemy Hepaestios, quoted by Photius p. 477 and Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV 10.1-7).
For the sources on Athena I do not see any reference to the birth of the Milky Way and I found the Lycophron "transposition" of the stories of Heracles and Theseus puzzling (Phemius=Poseidon / Tropaea=Hera).
For the sources on Hermes I could not find any source and I would need to go to a library for each of the books. This is with the exception of Diodorus Siculus that does not say anything about the Milky Way and I agree with you it sounds like a sourcing error (maybe from printing).
Based on what I have seen out of the above in just about all cases there is a reference of Hera milking Heracles but nothing more than that. It sounds like a dead end. I think the reference to the creation of the Milky Way that points to Diodorus Siculus in the article on Heracles should be removed. The paragraph should not mention Hera's pity or the Milky Way which are definitely not in the account by Diodorus Siculus.
The Graves cite is to "Tzetzes, On Lycophron 1327", that is John Tzetzes’ Commentary (usually titled On Lycophron) on Lycophron’s ‘’Alexandra’’ 1327, not to Lycophron’s ‘’Alexandra’’ 1327, itself. As to what Lycophron does says:
[Theseus] went with the wild beast, the Initiate, who drew the milky breast of the hostile goddess Tropaea,”
The “Initiate” is a reference to Heracles—who was famously an initiate in the Eleusinian mysteries)—while the “goddess Tropaea” is a reference to Hera, so this is clearly a reference to Hearacles being suckled by Hera, however no mention of the Milky Way. Perhaps the bit about Athena and the Milky Way is in Tzetzes—here's a link to Müller's edition: On Lycophron 1327 (in Greek, with Müller's Latin notes)—but I know of no translation of this, but I don't see it, and it would take awhile for me to puzzle out the Greek.
However here is what Eratosthenes, Epitome 44 (Hard, pp. 132–133) says:
It is not possible for sons of Zeus to have any share in the honurs of the sky unless they had been suckled at Hera’s breast; and that is why Hermes, so they say, brought Heracles along after his birth and placed him at Hera’s breast, for him to be suckled at it; but when Hera became aware of it, she thrust him away, and the rest of her milk spilled out accordingly to make up the milky circle [i.e. the Milky Way].
And here is what Hyginus, Astronomy 2.43 (Hard, p. 133) says:
There is also a circle in the heavens which is white in colour, and which men have called the milky circle. Eratosthenes recounts in his Hermes that Hera unknowingly gave milk to the infant Hermes, but when she came to realize that he was Maia’s son, she pushed him away; and that is why a bright trail of spilled milk can be seen among the stars. Others have said that Heracles was placed at Hera’s breast while she was asleep, and she acted as has just been described when she woke up. Or according to other authors, Heracles was so greedy that he sucked in so much milk he could not keep it in his mouth, and what spilled out from his mouth is shown in this circle.
Tropaea is clearly Hera but who was Tropaea? I never heard of that. The same I find about Phemius which is Poseidon. That is what I find puzzling.
Thank you for the additional search and the comments on Eratosthenes/Hyginus. It does seem there is a story but the "milky circle" can be anything in the sky. There is no direct reference to the Milky Way itself in the original texts. I assume that "[i.e. the Milky Way]" is your comment. If now, was the "milky circle" the name of the Milky Way before modern astronomy?
Alright, then the passage in the "Birth and childhood" section should not use Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica, Book IV 9.6 for reference 23 but Eratosthenes, Epitome 44 and Hyginus, Astronomy 2.43. Thanks for the information.
The article on the Minotaur says that "Theseus killed the Minotaur with the sword of Aegeus and led the other Athenians back out of the labyrinth." I read 5 sources for the story of Theseus and the Minotaur: Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV) , Hyginus (Fabulae), Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca), Plutarch (Life of Theseus) and Pausanias (Description of Greece). None of them says that Theseus used a weapon to kill the Minotaur. In fact, the only source that specified how Theseus killed the Minotaur was Pseudo-Apollodorus who explained Theseus used his fists (Bibliotheca, E.1.9). Do you know what is the source for the account of the sword?
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 2020. Happy editing, llywrch (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Paul August, You are edit warring on the article Cyclopes, please stop. You made a bold edit to the article on December 13, it was reverted, and a discussion is going on. (See: WP:BRD) There are five editors: Sweetpool50, P Aculeius, Furius, Caeciliusinhorto and myself, who have commented on the talk page, and not one of them has expressed the opinion that the guidelines mentioned on WP:BRD and on WP:CAUTIOUS should be ignored, as you are doing. I am not arguing that the particular content you are repeatedly deleting needs to remain in the article or be unaltered. That particular content was in fact in the process of being edited and adjusted by a number of editors when you interrupted that process with your bold edit. I suggest that the guidelines (WP:BRDWP:CAUTIOUS) should be followed. You are the only editor who seems not to agree with that. I suggest that you end this time-wasting edit war, and allow the editing process to proceed in a normal manner. Please respect the opinions of your fellow editors. If you continue to edit war, against consensus—which does not mean unanimity, see WP:CONSENSUS—you may end up losing your editorial privileges.Bitwixen (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bitwixen, kindly don't use other editors to bolster an argument that clearly none of them support, or behave as if you have the right to issue warnings in retaliation because you received one. None of the other editors who responded to requests for comment agree that the material you've been arguing about belongs in that article. Arguing that it has to be restored because the discussion took place after it was deleted is pointless. Several editors have already indicated that you don't seem to be willing to collaborate, but are just insisting that things be as you want them using any excuse or theory that you think supports your position—but at the end of the day, no matter what technicalities you come up with, if it doesn't belong in the article then it's not staying! Please take some advice and drop this matter before you get yourself blocked for disruptive editing. P Aculeius (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted Bitwixen again with the warning that further action on his part will be reported to the admin panel. I would prefer that came from you, but any of us could do it; judging by recent responses, I think our collective patience has come to an end. Like you, I'm reluctant to see a potentially good editor go, but I have been recognising the pattern in Bitwixen's responses from past bitter experience. Over the years 2012-14 (when I went by another name) there was an editor called WP Editor 2011 who used to call himself "a humble Wikignome" and eventually painted himself into a similarly defiant corner, leading to an indefinite ban. Bitwixen's behavior has been so eerily similar that I wondered for awhile whether it was the same person registered under another name. I am hoping a less extensive pause for reflection will bring a change of heart, and perhaps a recommendation to that effect coming from you might carry weight. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that P. August is understandably reluctant to resort to using his authority in a dispute in which he himself is involved—as no doubt you are as well. Asking a third party to review the situation and recommend further action, if necessary, would probably be better. P Aculeius (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius and Sweetpool50: Since I'm involved in the content dispute, I won't be using any of my admin tools here (and I don't think Sweetpool50 expects me to). Although there would seem to be sufficient number of editors aleady involved, asking other parties to "review the situation and recommend further action" is always an option. Can either of you suggest other parties to ask? We can, of course, always report Biwixen to WP:ANEW (where all of our actions will come under review). Another course of action would be to open a Request for comment (RfC). I don't particularly look forward to doing either of these, but if Bitwixen keeps reverting, I suppose something like this will be needed. Paul August☎13:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your judgment, as I've mostly stayed out of admin matters in my Wikicareer, thankfully avoiding any kind of sanction—if only by knowing when to back off and give up in the face of overwhelming or at least insanely vigorous opposition. Even in matters of grammar and style—*sigh*! Your judgment, and, if you'll forgive the flattery, willingness to defer to the judgment of others when it's well-reasoned, even if you disagree with it—makes me confident that you'll choose the most efficacious course of action should it be necessary to take this further. As I see it, the worst that could happen is that someone might side with Bitwixen on technical grounds over the initial reversion, but the argument would still be moot since it's been fleshed out by multiple editors on the article's talk page, and they all think the material is better treated elsewhere. P Aculeius (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, @Paul August:, I knew you couldn't take action yourself, but I was hoping you had suggestions for how the next step might be initiated. The last time I attempted something like this I was so technically unskilled I made a complete hash of it - and got accused of edit-warring into the bargain. That in turn emboldened the other editor, so that his misbehaviour continued much longer than it need have. What I had in mind was an ANI for edit-warring, should Bitwixen persist after his final warning. If we need someone uninvolved, I could draw the situation to the attention of the administrator in shining armour who finally sorted out the problem I mentioned above. He's very much a St George kind of character, which is why I wanted to make sure an appeal for clemency went with the appeal! Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweetpool50: Well WP:ANI would technically be a bit premature, since that page is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", which I don't think this is, yet (although in practice such technicalities are often ignored). The edit warring noticeboard WP:ANEW would be the more appropriate administrative noticeboard. You could certainly bring this situation to the previous admin, who you found helpful, asking for their help and advice. That might obviate the need to take the more formal actions I've mentioned above. And frankly, I don't deal a lot with this kind of administrative work, and there are many far more experienced admins in such matters than I, who might have better ideas for how best to move forward. Paul August☎18:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Panels 16 &17: "Telephus receives weapons from Auge"Detail of panel 16
Dear Paul,
You wrote,
This is a detail of panel 16, neither of these figures are Telephus or Auge. Telephus stands to the far right of panel 16 (not shown here), and only his torso is extant. On panel 17 Auge stands to the right of Telephus holding a helmet out for Telephus)
I respectfully defer to your judgment here. But perhaps you can also suggest an appropriate caption for this photo? Because it seems to be mislabelled, or not properly labelled. Regards. Y-barton (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an image of the full panels 16 and 17 which together are titled "Telephus receives weapons from Auge". Below it is the image you added to Telephus, which is a detail of panel 16. The two figures in the detail are male attendants, standing behind Telephus. Telephus' torso, wearing a cuirass, can be seen in the top image just to the right of the two attendants. Why do you say the photo is "mislabelled"? Where do you see this mislabeling? Paul August☎22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Paul, for your clarification. I have now added more labelling to this image at the Commons. It was just insufficiently labelled, I guess, so I got confused. Y-barton (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about the article (Paradeigma). In any case WP:PROD is for uncontested deletions, which is not the case here. By policy, the quality of the challenge is not a consideration. Your next step would be to nominate the article for deletion, see WP:AFD. You don't need an account to do that. Regards, Paul August☎11:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had barely any activity for the past 8 or so years, and if someone even knows about this article, they can add onto it. I request that you leave this article unprotected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.210.141 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow missed that you said you didn't get what the gorilla was about. Believe it or not, it's a kind of expression of sympathy for arbcom members, who -- once elected -- can't ever really be just regular ol' editors anymore, because everyone knows they hold the power of life and death. It's kind of like how movie stars can't just go into a restaurant for a quiet bite to eat. This is completely different from implicitly accusing an arb of abusing their authority or intimidating someone, as you seemed to think. (I'm explaining here to avoid complicating that thread further.)
I just want to add, and I really mean this, that though I think you're dead wrong about the analog people, I bear no one on the project ill will (well, almost no one) and you're welcome to visit any time. EEng04:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Thanks for the explanation. I could have investigated via the link that Iri provided, but was too lazy. And in any case I felt confident at that point that the image didn't mean what it looked like it might. So you think I'm dead wrong about the "analog people", but I don't think I've expressed an opinion on them. I'd really like to know what is it exactly that you think I think? As I admire many things about you, I welcome your welcome, and I will try to make a point of visiting more often (even if only to scold, and by the way I only ever bother to scold people who I think might be good enough to be worth trying to make better). Paul August☎13:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about your expressed opinion that the analog-binary caption was unacceptable. Don't admire me, I'll just break your heart. Besides, Levivich has already agreed to marry me; J.S. Mill is writing our vows. EEng03:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: But I never expressed an opinion about the caption. I certainly never said it was unacceptable. Here's what I did say:
"I think you happen to be in the wrong here. We all make mistakes, and we should all try to listen with an open mind to other people when they tell us we've made one. ... For me, if some[one] thinks one of my jokes is offensive—even if I think they are the only one who thinks so—I think my response would be to apologize, and retract it. It seems to me to [be] just a matter of simple politeness. ... Regardless of whether or not the removal was right, I'm trying to say that your response could have been more polite. ... I'm sorry, but I see nothing in your responses above that indicate to me that you are listening to or taking on board any of the constructive criticisms your fellow editors are trying to give you. It would be good if you could try harder to do that. ... That you seem to believe that everything you've done here was perfectly appropriate—that you seem to believe all your critics are wrong—that you take no responsibility at all for any part of this problem—is disheartening."
I didn't mean by any of this that your *caption* was necessarily inappropriate, but that, in my opinion, your *response* to those who did think so was less than ideal. Paul August☎10:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well it misspelled "Sarpedon" as "Saperdon", and the edit was poorly worded, and seemed like unnecessary details to me. If you feel strongly about it, you can add it back. Paul August☎10:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Paul August, I seem to have gotten into a content dispute at the above article but managed to persuade the other editor to take it to the Talk page. Trouble is that the subject is judged of low interest in the template there, so there may not be much discussion. I remembered when you were working on Cyclopes that you went to the relevant topic project and interested other editors in taking part. That would be Project:Nevada in this case, but I'm not sure where or how to word such a request so that it doesn't sound like canvassing. I'd be grateful if you could advise me on that.
Should that not generate discussion, I believe there's another forum where some of the procedural aspects of the article might be discussed. For me that's primarily weighing secondary and tertiary sourced facts against WP:UNDUE. I'd like to draw on your knowledge on which forum that might be, in case it comes to it. You did a superb job of moderating on Cyclopes and managed the discussion there very skilfully. It's a skill that I lack, unfortunately! Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. I hope you're staying safe. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sweetpool. Yes I'm staying very safe thanks, I hope you are as well.
I'm sorry to hear about your content dispute. I've taken a brief look at the talk page discussion, and it seems to have just got started. If it were me I'd probably see what happens there before asking others for help. However, the place to raise the issue with the Nevada project would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nevada. That project seems a bit moribund however, so I wouldn't count on much help from there. If you do post a request there, or elsewhere, just briefly, and neutrally describe the dispute, provide a link to the appropriate talk page discussion, and ask for help (see WP:CAN). You could also ask the other editor (or editors) to help in the writing of such requests. Which would be a good exercise in consensus building. Other places you could ask for help are WP:THIRD or WP:DRN. Before doing that, be aware that both of those boards will expect that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page first.
Thank you very much, that's most useful. I've edited down the section in question in the hope that will help defuse things. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a source, namely, Greekmythology.com, just look at that page on Greekmythology.com and it says that he is worshiped by many as a protogenoi god with Chaos and Gaia as his parents. 82.17.221.173 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just left the following reply to you on Talk:Oceanus:
"The website greekmythology.com is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. (For what constitutes an acceptable source please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Nor does that website cite any acceptable sources, in fact it cites no sources at all. Ultimately any source for this would have to be based on some ancient source, and as I said, I know of no ancient source which says this. Paul August☎20:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Please take a look at James Sadat (talk). To the best of my knowledge, this user is edit warring and violating ‘What not to have on your user-page?’ I think the user should be blocked under ‘Conflict of interest’ and ‘Clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia.’ Idell (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: I now think I've fixed everything with respect to that page. I've also tried to explain things, as best I could, to the user who did the merge here. Please feel free to add to, or correct, what I've said there. I'm sorry I undid your edits without taking the time to look into the situation more carefully. Regards, Paul August☎10:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've checked the pages to which I'd added a {{dn}} tag, and all are now clean.
I think the hatnote solution is best. The obscure millipede junior synonym is outnumbered by the obscure mythological figures. A DAB page might be permissible under WP:TWODABS, but looks really unnecessary - Rhexenor is not going to collect bad links-in. Narky Blert (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another advantage has only just occurred to me - if anyone is looking for the millipede, they'll learn the origin of the name en route. Narky Blert (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's often the case I would assume. And even the entry "mythological" has little value to me, since I would guess that such an entry is often simply the result of an (albeit reasonable) assumption on someone's part. Paul August☎13:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, you goaded me into digging up the original paper and adding it to Narceus, which is all to the good. Biologists' style is to say just (Authority 18xx) or the like, trusting that there's been no data corruption between the first publication and whatever it was they copied the information from. An interesting and relatively straightforward search, starting clean from "Brexenor millipede"; it took only 20 minutes, with few dead ends. Narky Blert (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Sorry to trouble you, Paul August. A while back you managed to widen discussion on the Cyclopes Talk Page by drawing attention to it through the appropriate portal. I'd like to do that for a discussion about the novel above but can't see where to do that at the Novel Portal. Could you advise me, please? Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Circa is significantly easier to look up than the more cryptic "c." Please stop being critical of changes that are helpful, but you do not happen to "like". 50.25.221.206 (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"To indicate approximately, the abbreviation c. (followed by a space and not italicized) is preferred over circa, ca., or approx. The template {{circa}} may be used."
Hello. I recently replied to you on Euripides' Talk page. I am not as well-turned in Wikipedia as you presumably are, with your administrator title, and accordingly do not know if that was the correct way to reply. But I am now here, as a guess, because you have not replied there; and because I want to direct myself directly at you, because your administrator title implies that you know things that I do not; and that you have some disposition to improve things. I bring you myself as such a thing for improvement, which may consequently sprout some improvements to articles, which is surely very enticing indeed.
To be plain with you, if I may, I want you to be plain with me, if you may; particularly concerning translation (and particularly of ancient text, such as quotes we swing mid the Euripides ship and fellows, etc).
You have removed some translations I made, calling them "original research", and suggesting I read about such things. I have read and read again everything pertinent I could find on the original-research-reliable-neutrality-translation-citation-etc pages, but doing so has only led me to believe that proffering translations of Euripides quotes (because the quote, as I interpret it, is of Euripides; not his translators) is neither "original research" (for that, as I interpret it, is nonsense), nor unacceptable.
Somewhere it says that "official" translations are preferred to those of article-editors. But this suggests indeed that an article-editor may proffer translations (as I said on the Talk page, one reason I included the Greek is because the Greek is the quote, not the translation).
What I will do now, is demonstrate very simply and quickly why I preferred myself to the "reliable sources". For it is not vainglory, nor such stuff.
I have access to two "reliable" translations of Aristophanes' Clouds. But first, the Greek: line 123: "ἀλλ᾿ ἐξελῶ σ᾿ εἰς κόρακας ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας". I do not know if you can Greek, but that, in English, is: "I will expel you from the house, toward the crows". Nearby, line 133: "βάλλ᾿ εἰς κόρακας":"Throw to the crows" ("yourself" is implied).
Now, for the reliable sources: Alan Sommerstein, in an Aris & Phillips edition, gives: "I'll throw you out of the house, and you can go to blazes"; and: "Oh, get stuffed!", respectively. Jeffrey Henderson, in a Loeb edition, gives: "I'll throw you the hell out of the house!"; and: "Buzz off to blazes!" So, we may note here, if we choose to, that only I and Aristophanes speak of the carrion birds.
What I am hoping for, from you, is some clarification concerning translation generally; particularly, to stick with our examples here, why I cannot enlighten the world with what text actually is (ie source text (ie Greek)), and what it actually means (ie target text); because, as we have seen, in our examples, the reliable sources are not actually reliable sources; and because we do not equally understand the rules. This latter is desirable. Untitled50reg (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm sorry I haven't been more responsive here, but I've been mostly sick in bed since Saturday. I will try to clarify things when I'm feeling better. Hope that is ok. Paul August☎18:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was myself stuck in bed, sick, for much of last week (and, indeed, until Saturday), so am content for you to carry that on without me. I don't mean to imply any impatience, but rather that I was not certain that you would be aware that I replied to you. I am now suspicious that some sort of communication has been successful, so can leave you til whenever. Untitled50reg (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Untitled50reg: I'm finally feeling well enough to give what I hope is a cogent reply :-)
All assertions made in Wikipedia must be verifiable (See WP:V). In particular all quotes must be accompanied by a cite to a reliable published source from which the quote has been taken. That would not be possible (presumably) for one of your translations.
You also ask if you may provide the Greek text associated with some given quoted translation. You may, provided you give a reliable source for that Greek text. For example if you wanted to give the Greek text for Euripides' Medea lines 250–251, you could write:
@Paul August: I think I understand, if I understand that a translation of a quote is considered to be itself the quote; and, though verifiable, as pointing to what it translates, is itself, perversely, what it translates, and therefore needing a source as if it were a quote. And, for reliability, that pertains rather superficially and abstractly to dogma and names, thus, from my neutral point of view, what I think, sticking with translations of Euripides, extends only to, say, minimising distortion, using verifiable information; employing verifiable dogma to ward off unverifiable dogma, which latter may distort unacceptably.Untitled50reg (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you know the theories for the birth of Helen are many. One of the theories is that Helen and Dioscuri (the brothers of Helen: Castor and Pollux) came out from the same egg. This theory can be verified from at least 3 different sources:
1. Timothy Gantz - Early Greek Myth (page 321):
"the scholia at Homer Odyssey 11.298 have all the three childer (as Zeus') emerge from the egg."
In Servius, we find again the notion (as in the Odyssey scholia) that the three childern were born from one egg afther the mating of Zeus/swan and Leda (Σ Aen 3.328; cf. VMI78; III 3.6)."
2. Fulgentius - The mythographer (page 78):
"For Jove disguised as a swan lay with Leda, who laid an egg from which were born the three, Castor, Pollux, and Helen of Troy. "
3. The Vatican mythographers (page 45):
"The Story of the Swan and Leda.
Striving after the love of the maiden Leda, Jupiter changed himself into a swan and pretended that he was fleeing from an eagle. He had transformed Mercury into the eagle. Thus, received into the lap of Leda, he had intercourse with her; she produced an egg from which three offspring were born: Castor, Pollux, and Helen."
In at least 2 different sources we can read that Dioscuri were born on a specific islet called Pefnos, beneath the crests of Taygetus mountain in Messinia-Peloponnese:
1. Pausanias - Description of Greece (English) (page 225):
"And about twenty stades from Thalames is a place called Pephnos, by the sea. There is a little island in front of it not greater than a big rock, which is also called Pephnos, and the people of Thalames say that it was the birthplace of Castor and Pollux. Alcman also gives us the same account i know in one of his poems. But they do not say that they were brought up at Pephnos, for Hermes took them to Pellana. And in this island there are brazen statues of Castor and Pollux about a foot high in the open air. These the sea cannot move from their position, though in winter time it dashes violently over the rock. This is indeed wonderful, and the ants there are whiter in colour than ants generally. The Messenians say that the island originally belonged to them, so that they claim Castor and Pollux as theirs rather than as deities of the Lacedaemonians. "
2. Homeric hymns - xvii. 3, xxxiii. 4 sqq. (page 63):
XVI. TO THE DIOSCOURI
Of Castor and Polydeuces do thou sing,—shrill Muse, the Tyndaridæ, sons of Olympian Zeus, whom Lady Leda bore beneath the crests of Taygetus, having been secretly conquered by the desire of Cronion of the dark clouds. Hail, ye sons of Tyndarus, ye cavaliers of swift steeds.
So you can understand that the verification of Helen's birthplace from the official Greek government and from Dr. Petros Themelis, one of the most famous and important archaeologists of Greece, are some major facts we need to seriously consider.
We're having a discussion about a particular source and whether it should be used in Talk:Molossians#Georgiev in the context of the theories it puts forward about IE languages in the Balkans. What are the prevalent opinions about it in your experience with relevant bibliography?--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stomped through Euripides, and left a trail of "cn" and "what". "Since We and Thou had it out already" (possibly quoting here Finnegans Wake, to stress the seriousness), I am sticking a big serious sign to your face, which says: "I have already accepted this responsibility, and am glad to fix things forthwith".Untitled50reg (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir,
You just deleted a text from the birth of Helen of Troy, because you mentioned “it does not belong here”. I am a user with little experience in wikipedia, can you please help me with this?
I mentioned the birthplace of Helen, do you suggest it does not belong to the “Life-birth”? Should i make another title on “Life” called “Birthplace”?
Best regards Kavouras55 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The commemoration of the supposed birth place, by a town in Greece is not particularly notable. In any case, according to the ancient accounts of her mythology, Helen was born to Leda, who was the wife of the Spartan king Tyndareus. I don't know of any ancient source which specifies Helen's birthplace, but the presumption would be that it was in Sparta. I don't know why the island of Pefnos claims she was born there. I know of no ancient sources which say this. So in lieu of such sources, I don't think that claim should be in the "birth" section, or in fact anywhere in the "Mythology" section (the recently renamed "Life" section). At most the local claim of the Island to be the "birthplace" of Helen might warrant a mention in our article Pefnos, but as I say that fact is not particularly of "encyclopedic" interest. Paul August☎13:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir,
Please let me refer on two things that needs to be considered:
1. The claim of Pefnos to be the birthplace of Helen, is not a local claim as you mention. If you see at the official web page of the Greek ministry of culture and sports https://www.culture.gov.gr/el/Information/SitePages/view.aspx?nID=3432 (only Greek text), you can read that the Minister of Culture and Sports of Greece, Miss Lina G. Mendoni ( https://www.culture.gov.gr/en/ministry/SitePages/political_leadership.aspx?role=Υπουργός ) herself inaugurated the statue on the Pefnos island and claimed that Helen was born from this egg. I made a translation for you of the Greek text:
"Inauguration of the monument of Dioscuri, on the islet Pefnos, in West Mani
On Saturday night the Minister of Culture and Sports Mrs. Lina Mendoni, representing the Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, inaugurated in the Municipality of West Mani, in Agios Dimitrios next of Stoupa, the monument of Dioscuri, on the islet Pefnos: An egg that the artist Giannis Gouzos has carved the mixing of Leda with Zeus-Swan. According to the legend that has been saved in the verses of Euripides Helen and in the texts of Pausanias, Leda after her union with Zeus-Swan laid an egg on the islet of Pefnos or in another variation of the myth laid two eggs. From the union of Leda with Zeus Helen was born, the beautiful Helen of Menelaus, Clytemnestra and the Dioscuri, Castor and Polydeuces, whom the Spartans worshiped as demigods and when they were thrown into battle they were singing the paean in their honor.
Professor Petros Themelis contributed to the depiction on the monument, while the Mayor of West Mani believes that the monument will contribute on making Agios Dimitrios of West Mani known to the whole world and will attract visitors. Especially if the monument-egg will be connected with the two carved tombs of Agia Sophia in Old Kardamili, which are attributed to Dioscuri by Strabo.
The Minister of Culture and Sports in her greeting spoke about the intertemporal depiction of the myth of the union of Leda with Zeus:
"The ancient Greeks are distinguished for their fertile fictional imagination, but the myths contains and often indicates historical data. The myths were depicted in all art forms of antiquity - this spesific myth adorns a mosaic of exceptional quality in Palaipafos of Cyprus - but they were also a source of inspiration for all the great painters of the Renaissance and otherwise. A typical example is the famous painting by Leonardo da Vinci, which in a unique way depicts the moment of the birth of Leda's childrens ", noted Mrs. Lina Mendoni, exciting the Italians attending at the event. "The myths that refer to this area, in today's Mani, such as the one about the birthplace of the Dioscuri but also of Eleni and Clytemnestra, inspire the inhabitants, the local authorities and the artists and becomes the cause of creation of modern works with new approach. The rich cultural reserve of Messinia allows our imagination to give existance to the myths, tied to its magical natural environment. The visitor of Agios Dimitrios will be able to follow the path of Pausanias and Strabo and live the myths and the history of Mani in its big duration, in a combination with the hospitality, the local products and whatever is consistent in showing that the place becomes a destination ", the Minister concluded, thanking the Municipality of West Mani for his initiative."
So as you can read on the official text of the Greek ministry of culture and Sports, the minister herself which is responsible for all the antiquities of Greece, claims that Helen was born on Pefnos island.
As you can also read, the famous professor of Archaeology Dr. Petros Themelis, who is the leader of excavations for over 30 years of the city of Ancient Messene, also claims the same thing, as he also inaugurated the egg of Pefnos island.
So the claim is not local, its an official claim from the official Greek government and also from one of the most famous Greek archaeologist professors.
2. The legends that are mentioned on the above text, are ancient texts of Euripides "Helen" and texts of Pausanias.
The texts from Euripides "Helen" (https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Greek/EuripidesHelen.php)
Line 17:
"Helen: As for me: My land is the famous Sparta and my father is Tyndareas, though there’s a story that says that one day Zeus disguised himself as a swan that was supposed to be fleeing the clutches of an eagle and, if one is to believe that story, he flew to my mother’s bed and, by deception, he made love to her. Leda is my mother’s name and mine is Helen."
Line 252:
"Helen: Dear friends! Look at the Fate to which I am yoked: My mother has brought me to this world to be nothing more than a monstrous freak! No woman –neither Greek nor barbarian- has given birth to the egg of a white bird, yet, they say, that this is what my mother has done. Leda, they say, delivered me inside the shell of a bird’s egg. Zeus is my father."
As you know Tyndareas was the king of Sparta and Leda was his wife. Thats why Helen mentions Sparta as her land.
But she also says that there is another story, the story of Zeus/swan. According to this story Helen was not the daughter of Tyndareas, but daughter of Zeus.
So we assume from the text that according to the first story Helen is from Sparta, but according to the second story she is not from Sparta.
The text from Pausanias: Description of Greece (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0160%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D26%3Asection%3D2http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0160%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D26%3Asection%3D3 )
"[2]Twenty stades from Thalamae is a place called Pephnus on the coast. In front of it lies a small island no larger than a big rock, also called Pephnus. The people of Thalamae say that the Dioscuri were born here. I know that Alcman too says this in a song: but they do not say that they remained to be brought up in Pephnus, but that it was Hermes who took them to Pellana.
[3] In this little island there are bronze statues of the Dioscuri, a foot high, in the open air. The sea will not move them, though in winter-time it washes over the rock, which is wonderful. Also the ants here have a whiter color than is usual. The Messenians say that this district was originally theirs, and so they think that the Dioscuri belong to them rather than to the Lacedaemonians."
In this text you can read about the island Pephnus (or Pefnos) and the report of Pausanias that Dioscuri (Castor and Polydeykis - the brothers oh Helen) were born there.
But since we know that Dioscuri and Helen were born from the same egg (at least 3 different sources verify this - Timothy Gantz - Early Greek Myth (page 321), Fulgentius - The mythographer (page 78), The Vatican mythographers (page 45)), then the conclusion is that Helen and Dioscuri were born from the same egg on the island Pefnos.
As you mentioned at another point, Helen and Dioscuri were not real persons, they were myths, thats why their stories belongs to mythology. But even if it is mythology, it has places mentioned that are actually real places. And the reason for this is because the ancient writers liked to put their "heroes" living near or between them, on places that were familiar to them.
One of this places was a small island that had the shape of a bird's nest, when you look to it by the shore. Because of its shape, the ancients (Pausanias, the people of Thalamae and the ancient poet Alcman) imagined that on this island the famous egg was born. And from this egg Dioscuri and Helen came up. This island is called Pefnos and indeed it looks like a bird nest. On this island according to Pausanias used to be bronze statues of Dioscuri and now there is a modern sculpture of an egg depicting the union of swan/Zeus with Leda. The egg was made by the local municipality of West Mani (Check their official site: https://www.dimosdytikismanis.gr/εγκαινιάστηκε-από-την-υπουργό-πολιτι/), but it was such a big event for all Greece, that the minister and the most famous professor of archaeology inaugurated it.
That's a lot of material to digest. However, as far far as I can tell, the only ancient source mentioning a related birth on the island of Pefnos is Pausanias 3.26.2 which says:
"The people of Thalamae say that the Dioscuri were born [on Pephnus]."
So no mention of Helen being born there. Note there are many different accounts involving the birth of Helen and her siblings. Yes some ancient sources say that Helen and the Dioscuri were born from the same egg, but other sources say there were two eggs, one containing the Dioscuri, the other Helen and Klytaimestra. I see no way to conclude from Pausanias' account, that the legend of the "Thalmae" whereby the Dioscuri were born on Pefnos, must necessarily have included Helen being born there also. In fact it seems to me that if that legend had included Helen, Pausanias would have said so. Paul August☎11:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your effort on the subject. Please note that Pausanias says: "The people of Thalamae say that the Dioscuri were born here. I know that Alcman too says this in a song". So its the people of Thalamae (Thalamae is a village of West Mani) and the famous poet Alcman that claim this.
The ancient sources that claims Helen and Dioscuri were born from the same egg are at least three:
1. Timothy Gantz - Early Greek Myth (page 321): "the scholia at Homer Odyssey 11.298 have all the three childer (as Zeus') emerge from the egg." In Servius, we find again the notion (as in the Odyssey scholia) that the three childern were born from one egg afther the mating of Zeus/swan and Leda (Σ Aen 3.328; cf. VMI78; III 3.6)."
2. Fulgentius - The mythographer (page 78): "For Jove disguised as a swan lay with Leda, who laid an egg from which were born the three, Castor, Pollux, and Helen of Troy. "
3. The Vatican mythographers (page 45): "The Story of the Swan and Leda. Striving after the love of the maiden Leda, Jupiter changed himself into a swan and pretended that he was fleeing from an eagle. He had transformed Mercury into the eagle. Thus, received into the lap of Leda, he had intercourse with her; she produced an egg from which three offspring were born: Castor, Pollux, and Helen."
Ofcourse there are other sources claiming about two eggs etc, but those sources are not that many.
The important thing to understand is that there are two scenarios of where Helen was born, as she mentions in Euripides "Helen": In the first scenario she was born in Sparta, in the second scenario she implies she was born somewhere else. So where is this other place? Its the place that Zeus disguised as a swan and seduced Leda and Leda created an egg. So we can find the second scenario place, if we can find the place that the egg was created.
According to Pausanias, Dioscuri were born on the island Pefnos. As we know there also two scenarios of were Dioscuri were born. The first is in Sparta (if Tyndareas were their father) and the second is in Pefnos (if Zeus was their father). On the second scenario they came out from an egg.
After the mate of Zeus with Leda, she created either one or two eggs. As we can understand she could not place one egg on Pefnos island and the other somewhere else. Like in nature, all the animals that produce eggs, they do it to their own specific nest and they dont put eggs here and there.
So we can understand that definitely Leda put the egg (or eggs) on Pefnos island, since Dioscuri were born there. So this is the place from our previous question, the place that the egg (or eggs) were created.
Pausanias saw a small statue of Dioscuri on Pefnos island ( http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0160%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D26%3Asection%3D3 ): "In this little island there are bronze statues of the Dioscuri, a foot high, in the open air. The sea will not move them, though in winter-time it washes over the rock, which is wonderful. Also the ants here have a whiter color than is usual. The Messenians say that this district was originally theirs, and so they think that the Dioscuri belong to them rather than to the Lacedaemonians." As we can read in his text the Messenian people claimed that Dioscuri belonged to them rather than to the Spartians (Lacedaemonians). And thats the reason they put Dioscuri statue on the island, because Dioscuri were gods of war and the locals were always wild and war-friendly in these areas. Helen was not of much interest for them, thats why they didnt care to put a statue or even mention anything about her.
Wikipedia can't simply assert that Helen was born on Pefnos. The most we can ever do, in this regard, is to report where ancient accounts said she was born. However, no ancient report is explicit about where that was supposed to have been. The most we have is conjecture based upon inferences drawn from several different ancient sources, that, in at least one version of the story, she might have been thought to have been born on the island of Pefnos. And for Wikipedia to assert even the possibility of the existence of such a legend, would require "Reliable sources", which I don't think we have here. Otherwise, no matter how valid and convincing such conjecture might seem to you or me, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia (see Wikipedia's policy on "Original research"). Paul August☎13:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr Paul,
I just communicated with the professor and he gave me one of the ancient reports that proves Helen came from Pephnos. The ancient poet Lycophron on his poem "Alexandra", describes Helen as "Pephnaian bitch" (in Greek: "Πεφναίας κυνός") (Lykophron: Alexandra, by Simon Hornblower, Oxford University Press, page 143: "I see the winged firebrand rushing to snatch the dove, the Pephnaian bitch, which the aquatic vulture gave birth to, encased in a round covering of shell.")
You can see the book here: https://books.google.gr/books?id=NprxCQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
On the cite 87 (page 142) the writer explains what the "Pephnaian bitch" means:
"87. Πεφναίας κυνός: these words are best separated off by commas, as by Hurst/Kolde: Helen is both dove (Aphrodite's bird) and Pephnaian bitch (i.e. sexually shameless, a description applied by Helen to herself more than once, e.g. Il 6.344; cf. 850, and for the two passages see Sistakou 2009: 242). For Pephnos in Messenia see IACP: p. 551 (G.Shipley); more fully at Shipley 1997: 266-7; Barr. map 58 C4, on the river Pamison between Thalamos and Leuktron. The Spartan poet Alkman (PMGF 23), cited by Paus. 3.26.2, says the Dioskouroi (Helen's brothers) were born there; this makes the ethnic appropriate as a way of designating Helen of Sparta (Σ adds that she set out from there); cf. Ghali-Kahil 1955: 207. This ethnic therefore drops an advance hint of the long Dioskouroi section at 503-568."
Please tell me your opinion. Best regards.
Thanks for Hornblower's note to Lycophron, ''Alexandra 87. Given that note, together with Pausanias, 3.26.2, I think we might now be justified in asserting the following:
Pausanias also says that there was a local tradition that Helen's brothers, the Dioscuri, were born on the island of Pefnos, adding that the Spartan poet Alcman also said this,[1] while the poet Lycophron's use of the adjective "Pephaian" (Πεφναίας) in association with Helen, suggests that Lycophron may have known a tradition which held that Helen was also born on the island.[2]
My pleasure to help on this, Mr Paul. I totally agree with the way you described the referrings to the ancient poets (Alcamn, Lycophron) and traveller (Pausanias). I suggest if we add as cites, an opinion article of the professor of Archaeology Petros Themelis on a Messenean newspaper, describing the myth of birth of Helen in a very poetic way: https://eleftheriaonline.gr/local/politismos/item/222736-me-aformi-to-avgo-tis-lidas-stin-pefno-i-gennisi-tis-oraias-elenis-kai-i-optikopoiisi-tis-mnimis The only problem is that its in Greek, but i think the professor can translate it in English and publish it again on the newspaper.
Also may we add the official press release of the Greek ministry of Culture and Sports, which describes the myth and adds an official verification of the modern Greek state: https://www.culture.gov.gr/el/Information/SitePages/view.aspx?nID=3432 .The problem is that this is also only in Greek.
Best regards
You are right Mr Paul, i agree on this. The only think i would like to add is a photo of the sculpture placed on Pefnos island, a marble egg depicting swan/Zeus with Leda. Hope you agree on this.
Best regards Kavouras55 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now posted a (slightly modified) version of what I wrote above. Note I did not add the image you've suggested, since I don't think it is appropriate here. Please be aware that other editors may disagree with this addition to the article. Also, in that regard, I am going to copy this discussion to that article's "talk page": Talk:Helen of Troy, so that there is a record of this discussion there, and so that other editors can read and perhaps comment on it. If you wish to contribute anything further to this discussion please do so there, thanks. And thanks again for contributing to Wikipedia. Regards, Paul August☎15:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, my name is Calvin, and I am currently working on my first ever Article for Creation! I come to your talk page to ask for assistance with said AfC, and I found your user page by reading the list of active administrators on Wikipedia! I also read through your user page and you seem to be a very thoughtful and helpful editor. I am here to ask for help with the article for Kurt Kerns (Draft:Kurt Kerns) who was a member of the rock band Gravity Kills and since then has gone on to become a notable architect.
The Article for Creation has hit numerous blocks for not passing notability guidelines, and just recently the editor that Rejected the draft told me that he was not convinced, and I should try to ask another editor for their opinion. I would love for you to take a look at the page if you have time and let me know what you think! If you look at the draft's talk page, you can see the dialogue I had with the other editor about the AfC meeting the WP:AUTHOR guidelines, and his reasoning for Rejecting. I do not agree with the editor's reasonings, and I am interested in what you think of this issue.
Any assistance would be much appreciated, and I look forward to receiving your input. Thank you!
Hi Calvin. I'm sorry that your proposed AfC was rejected. I had a brief look at your draft, and the associated discussion. Unfortunately I have no expertise, and little interest in this topic area. However, although notability is inherently somewhat subjective, it is not clear to me that the subject of your draft has received the "significant coverage" required to meet Wikipedia's "General notability guideline". Note that, as that guideline also points out:
"If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. "
So you might consider trying to incorporate some of this content into other articles.
Hi! You're right about this. I just noted that this IP editor has been unjustifiably removing content for some time and reverted several of their edits. I shouldn't have reverted that one though. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article on Thales could use some work. Not being a historian, I don't know how exactly to do it. I've added a section in that article's talk page detailing what I think doesn't fit well. It'd be nice for you to drop in there. I'm new on Wiki and you're one of only two historians I know here, and have repeatedly seen making good edits, so I thought I'd ask you. Hope you don't mind... Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You stated, "Sources establish the existence of Zagreus as a character, but no sources given which establish any particular relevance, significance and notability with respect to the article's subject." What sources, in your opinion, would establish particular relevance, significance and notability with respect to the article's subject? Other pages about the Greek deities contain sections on their depictions/receptions in modern culture.—Claym-45 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Claym. We would need some source which, in discussing the Greek god Zagreus, mentions the character in the video game as being a particularly relevant/significant for the understanding of the god, or is a particularly noteworthy example, say, of the gods continuing importance. For quidelines on such matters see WP:TRIVIA, and in particular MOS:POPCULT. As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regards, Paul August☎17:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Thanks. Yes I've created a stub, and I'm working on fleshing it out. A complete article will be biggish. And yes it is very surprising that such an article didn't already exist! The Theban Cycle (of which the war of the Seven against Thebes plays a major part) is second only to the Epic Cycle in importance for Greek mythology. I suppose that the lack of an article was also partially due to the fact that Aescylus' play Seven Against Thebes is, I guess, what most people think of when they see "Seven against Thebes". And the plays' article, acting like a black hole, sucked in all the references to the Seven. I've been working through the hundreds of links to play, tying to fix that. Paul August☎15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I made that mistake myself, as you can see from the corrections. And this is incredibly important for a whole bunch of things that matter to me, including teaching Antigone--the play is of course very terse on the matter, and a bit of background is absolutely necessary for my students. Plus I also teach Chaucer's Knight's Tale in the same class, which is also set in the aftermath of the Seven against Thebes. And then there's Statius, as a second guide for Dante, but I see you've been working on Thebaid (Latin poem) also. Well, I appreciate the work you're putting in: it is very necessary, and it's a biggish job indeed. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks again. As for Statius' poem, I've been reading it while recently rewriting our articles on Hypsipyle and Opheltes, which is also how I came to notice our glaring omission regarding the Seven. Paul August☎
Regarding the lemma homotopy analysis method, I have found one older publication from 1989, in which the method is used [1] early than any other reference. Do you think, that it should be incorporated/quoted into the lemma? Bg, Warboerde (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seven against Thebes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Olympia and Ker.
Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
@Atsme: I would recommend that you move that discussion from the Archive, back to the original page, adding a request that it be closed (closing such things is not really my cup of tea, but I may give it a look if I can find the time). Paul August☎15:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Well it now looks like someone else has just moved it back. Adding a comment/request for closer, should keep it from being automatically archived again. Paul August☎15:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Actually Rhododendrites, when they moved that discussion back to the main page, they added a DNAU (DoNotArchiveUntil) template, which prevents it from being automatically archived. Paul August☎16:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seven against Thebes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dryas and Ismarus.
As an administrator I would like to bring to your attention the great irony of the 12:01, 23 November 2020 edit to Polyphemus (I do not know how to link directly), as well as the perceived unwarranted hostility toward myself from that editor. This latter is exemplified by the reversion being performed because of who performed the preceding edit. The editor which I point to, as you may be aware, has before now quasi-vandalised my talkpage (scrubbed out by a different editor), in addition to quasi-threatening me and ignoring my polite overture concerning the - as perceived by me - wildly unreasonable hostility. The hostility is not a problem, but the editor's behaviour which is goaded by the hostility is a problem. Untitled50reg (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. But I do not care at all what anybody thinks of me, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere. My concern was not so much about an editor but rather the edits of an editor. There is evidently a strange clique which curls around the classical pages of which you are an editor of authority therein, and I accordingly thought that you might want to imply that the hostile editor is an ass, to thereby soothe his sweet soul, and let Wikipedia go on unimpeded by the unconstructive edits such as the one I brought here (for the tag which I placed there, which was removed, is quite an applicable tag). For I am a thing of much benevolence and desire most acutely the soothing of a sweet soul. But if I told the editor that the editor is being an ass, this would not be a sweetness. From you it would be a sweetness. But I will trouble you no more on the matter, for I am not an editor taken seriously nor respected. Alas. Untitled50reg (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Paul, you're so organized!! You even have a "Work queue"! I'm lucky to have Siri remind me about appointments, and to set the timer so I'll remember to turn-off the heat when I'm hard boiling eggs - (trust me, you don't want to burn all the water out of the pan when you're boiling eggs). That's as organized as I get anymore these days!! My wardrobe is pretty organized because of the COVID-19 lockdown - I have night pajamas on the right and day pajamas on the left. The Cheetos are on the middle shelf next to the cashews and beer nuts. Atsme💬📧17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for undoing on Titanomachy (epic poem). I'm a bit curious, based on the references, shouldn't it be known that Zeus comes from outside Greece and not Greece?
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leger Agrippa (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorizedfor all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Materialscientist is not a bot. Why do you think so? The edit to Row hammer that you reverted, removed some questionable and unsourced text. That's not vandalism. What makes you think it was? Materialscientist reverted your edit because you failed to provide a reliable source for the content you were adding back. There is nothing inappropriate about that. The other edit was perhaps a mistake, you should just ask Materialscientist on their talk page. As for the posts on your talk page, you can just remove them. Paul August☎21:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Greek mythology for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look. However, a thorough review of that article would be an enormous job. And I am just qualified to know that we have few (if any) editors qualified to do it. Paul August☎12:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
Hello Paul August--you have access to JSTOR, right? I typed in the name and got plenty of hits; if you don't and you'd like me to email you some material, please let me know. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do have access to JSTOR, thanks. Will check there (eventually). I'd be interested in knowing any particularly useful titles you've found. Paul August☎15:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cepheus (father of Andromeda), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Argos.
@Deepfriedokra: Hmmm ... Unfortunately I don't remember the cirmcumstance here. The "warning" was apparently in response to this edit, which is primarily pro Albanian POV pushing. What that edit does is to add the unsourced statement that:
"genetic links between Albanians and Pre-Indo-Europeans are fairly strong"
and at the same time essentially delete, in the subsequent note, the following:
"Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers and Bernd Jürgen Fischer, editors of Albanian Identities: Myth and History, present papers resulting from the London Conference held in 1999 entitled "The Role of Myth in the History and Development of Albania." The "Pelasgian" myth of Albanians as the most ancient community in southeastern Europe is among those explored in Noel Malcolm's essay, "Myths of Albanian National Identity: Some Key Elements, As Expressed in the Works of Albanian Writers in America in the Early Twentieth Century".
replacing those two senetences with the sentence fragment:
which deletes some opposing (apparently sourced) POV, misnames one of the editors (intentionally?), and mangles the note.
However, unless the name change was intentional, this isn't really vandalism, so that particular warning now looks inappropriate to me. Paul August☎10:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
I was about to ask you if severe pruning of the final section of Cyclopes might not be in order, but you have already stepped in. I've cut it down even further so that it remains focussed on the proper subject. Hopefully Madreterra won't make an issue of it, but his editing history doesn't look reassuring. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you have done here is very strange. Neither of the titles is "accurate" (see the scan here, for example), and "PH.D. in two volumes" is meaningless anyway. Plus, besides these two titles where I had slightly edited punctuation (this by itself is generally perfectly allowed), that edit included many more legitimate changes, so reverting it completely was at least not polite. So I'm restoring my edit. If you have any concerns, please edit only what is needed (which we can discuss, if you want). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikhail Ryazanov: I'm sorry I didn't mean to be impolite. You changed the title of four works in the references section (incorrectly in my view) and correctly added three periods to the end of three of the works. So the easiest thing to me seemed to be to revert your edit, and add back the three periods, which is what I did. So in effect I did change "only what is needed". As for the titles:
Hard's book, has "H.J. Rose" in the title not "H. J. Rose". This is how it is printed in the copy of the book I own which I used as a reference, see also: WorldCat. So I think that should be changed back. Do you disagree?
Normalizing punctuation and formatting to conform to the house style is in fact recommended. English Wikipedia generally uses spaced initials with periods. For the Murray books, I have inserted links to their scans (at the Internet Archive) to the article, so you can check how these titles actually look in these books. For the Hard's book, look carefully at its title (I did at Google Books, already linked in the article) – it, for example, does not have the quotation marks and the colon, but does have a space between the initials (on the cover, although not on the title page – however, in the text they also don't space any initials, so this is their house style) and very different capitalization and italics. So there is no reason to copy titles verbatim from the books themselves or from any third-party catalogs, because if we do so, the references section will be a crazy mix of incompatible formats. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pleisthenes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Porphyry and Hellanicus.
I just want to come clean now and admit I shamelessly copied the ascii code unicode for your telephone talk icon. --- Possibly☎03:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
I am in no way making light of the broader situation. But I just wanted to let you know, when I saw your response, I was laughing out loud. You well hoisted me by my own petard, and I well-deserved it. I was sitting there, waiting to see when "someone" would propose actual text so we could dive in an see if we could get something to work. I hadn't even thought that that someone could/should be me...lol
I'll go wander around some policy pages and see if I can figure out something. Thank you btw.
I've recast the table of offspring and mothers in Hermes much as I did at Ares and now I may I understand your concerns at Talk:Ares#Kids' table a bit better. I found what seems to be really poor use of poor primary sources and began to see how widespread it might be. I've described a couple of examples at Talk:Hermes#Offspring, mothers and sources but I'm still wondering if we might need a centralised discussion at say Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome or similar, because cleaning this up could take a lot of tagging and/or deletion, and I don't fancy trying to produce long forensic explanations for each one. (To be honest, I don't fancy making a career of it at all.) I haven't been editing in this area long and I don't know what current attitudes are to what seems to be long-established use of primary sources for classical mythology and even history. Do you see a way forward? NebY (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look at Talk:Hermes. Using untranslated primary sources is useful, but never sufficient. However using translations of primary sources is sufficient for citing what the primary source says, but not for what the primary source means. So, for example, if the translation says that A was the father of B, then citing the translation for that assertion is fine. Paul August☎11:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look forward to your comments, here or there. There are issues with translation (in the cases I examined. I found Brimo well-translated as Hecate, but another translation might leave it as Brimo and give an editor the impression that was a different goddess; likewise I'd have liked to be pointed to the translation of Tzetzes and I wonder if the editor should instead have cited the secondary source in which they found a mention of Tzetzes on Hermes) but they're not the biggest problem for me. It's the use of bad sources such as the pseudo-clementine Homilies for a claim that may not be found in most secondary sources, for good reason, or the misunderstandings and consequent synthesis on Brimo, or what might be a thorough misreading of Tzetzes. Behind that sits a process of cataloguing in Wikipedia every primary-source mention rather than relying on modern scholarship, leaving the poor reader with a mixture of "mainstream" and distinctly outré mythology. NebY (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I essentially agree with all that. If a translation of a primary source containing "Brimo", leaves it untranslated, then it would be WP:OR to cite that translation as a source for some assertion about Hecate. And many citations in Wikipedia to such things as Scholia on such and such, where no secondary source (translation or not) is cited, are coming from non WP:RS sources (e.g. other Wikipedia articles, or various web sites such as Theoi.com). I will try to add some comments at Talk:Hermes, when I find the time. Paul August☎14:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
Hello. I noticed you edited one of my more recent edits at Selene, specifically the page number in Keightley from 62 to 56. As I have been informed by Haploidavey, there are several edition of his work; the page I linked (62) is the correct page in Thomas Keightley, Second edition, 1838, though elsewhere in the article the expanded version (paper?), 1877, with Leonhard Schmitz is used (which I did not notice when I first added the link to the other edition), where the correct page is presumably 56 (as this particular edition is not searchable on Google books, so I cannot verify myself). When you edited the article, you changed the page number from 62 to 56, but not the link itself (to the edition where p. 56 is the correct one that is), so it led to a page with irrelevant information for Selene. So that's why I edited it back. Best regards, Deiadameian (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deiadameian: Hi and thanks for your note. When I changed your page numbers I didn't notice that they were referring (and linking) to a different edition than the one used elsewhere in the article (I should have checked but didn't ;-) As you note, the edition used elsewhere is the fourth edition 1877, edited by Leonhard Schmitz and published by G. Bell and Sons, 1877, and that's the edition listed in the "References" section of the article. I think we should, of course, cite (and link to) the same edition throughout which I think should be the more recent fourth edition. Google Books has versions of the 1877 printing, as well as a 1902 reprinting of the fourth edition); are you able to see the relevant pages using the Google links given above? Very best regards, Paul August☎13:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paul August! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
You left this comment on Deiadameian's talk page regarding an alleged fragment of Pamprepius. You seem to be planning on using: "... while, in a possible Pamprepius fragment, she is called ..."; I assume you're using the word "possible" because you can't see the book in question that lists it as a Pamprepius fragment. However, I've had a look and I apparently have a 2018 De Gruyter reprint of the 1979 Teubner edition[1] of fragments of Pamprepius. The 3rd fragment in that book (p. 16 contains the relevant passage) is the same as what is in LCL 360, pp. 566, 567. I don't know how (or if?) you'd want to cite it, but I thought I'd let you know, as with this we should at least be able to justify calling it a Pamprepius fragment. Regards, Michael Aurel (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this (please tell me you don't look at all my edits). However the reason for the "possible" is not to express doubt that this fragment has been listed somewhere as Pamprepius fr. 3 (which you apparently have confirmed, could you send me a copy of the relevant passage in the Pamprepii Panopolitani carmina?), but doubt, as described on LCL 360 pp. 564–564, as to whether the fragment is actually from a poem by Pamprepius or not. Paul August☎02:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that makes sense. Regarding the book I'm looking at, there isn't really anything to send as it doesn't contain a translation or anything other than the text in Ancient Greek, which (I've checked) is all the same as what is in the Loeb volume (i.e. the relevant passage is no different to what you're looking at), meaning it should be fine to cite it as "Pamprepius, fr. 3 Livrea" or however you want. (And don't worry, I wouldn't be able to keep up with all the edits you make each day, I just checked to see what you were planning on using.) Michael Aurel (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
I noticed that you reverted a stray "</ref>" on the article Kouros, restoring the "</ref>" that appears in the text. Your comment on the reversion was "not stray".
At this point, I can only see it as time for harsh words:
Your reversion was an incompetent edit. You did not look carefully before acting, and presumably did not look afterwards to see what effect your action had. If you are going to do something as drastic as reverting other editors changes, you are obliged to do so thoughtfully and carefully. The re-appearance of the un-paired "</ref>" shows that you were neither thoughtful nor careful.
Shape up: Change your mind, change your actions.
And no: you do not get a "free pass" to treat anonymous editors with less consideration.
You are absolutely correct. I was wrong, you were right, that was a stray "</ref>". I made that edit in haste. I should have been more careful, and I should have checked the result of my edit. So I'm sorry and I offer the sincerest of apologies. I respect editors who wish to edit anonymously, and although my long experience has taught me to have less confidence in the edits of "IP editors", I know that, nevertheless, such editors can and do make good contributions, and I strive to treat all edits on the merits of their content and not on what I may think about the editor. Certainly I meant no disrespect to you personally (as far as I know everyone makes mistakes, so my thinking you might have made one does not mean anything in particular). Regards Paul August☎16:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your well-thought-through apology was very well done, and kudos to you for leaving the post up. Thank you. I definitely respect preserving evidence of a personal error within your own bailiwick. Especially since it is a mild indicator of probable change in mind and action that was the goal of my scold. Reciprocal regards. 71.94.235.196 (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This remark by Macrobius is historically noteworthy, if nothing else. And, of course it's an opinion, that is all we every have in such contexts."
You said this in regards to your revision. But this isn't really noteworthy, that is just in your opinion.
You acknowledge that the Marcobius quote is just an opinion, and so is everything else in contexts apparently. But this specifically stands out as it makes the least amount of sense, because unlike every thing else being said about the race, this one doesn't add up at all. It again: is just in theory.
Searching the words "Saturn and Satyr" on google leads you to just see that one dumb phrasing by the wiki that isn't even accurate saying something about "Saturn + Satyr = Penis". This is the only place that says this in theory. Think about it. In comparison to the other connections there, this one doesn't even matter nor really contribute to anything. Please see reason so that it isn't a thing people try to use for themselves when it comes to other media when people google this. Unlike before, as of now when you google it, you get the general information instead of the whole "Saturn + Satyr = Penis" irrelavancy: https://files.catbox.moe/2063nr.PNG
@Netero10: Hello! That Macrobius, a 5th-century Roman poet, thought that the words "Saturn" and "Satyr" were derived from the Greek word for penis is a fact (based upon the cited source: Riggs 2014, p. 234). There is no way to know for certain how any words were derived, but Macrobius's opinion on this—even if incorrect—is noteworthy (and that's not just my opinion, but also the opinion of the cited source, and now another Wikipedia editor Haploidavey, who has also reverted your edit). Your statement that the article is saying that "Saturn + Satyr = Penis" is simply not true!
Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and content is achieved through consensus. Since two editors now disagree with your removal there is currently no consensus for your proposed change to the article. If you still think you are right, then you can begin a discussion about this on the article's talk page: Talk:Satyr, where all editors can discuss this issue and we can try to build a consensus for any appropriate changes to the article. Please don't insist on your version of the article, by simply repeating your edit after being reverted by other editors, doing so can lead to your editing privileges being removed (See WP:EDITWAR).
@Paul August: How is it noteworthy when it does not really pertain to anything? It's not even correct information, but something speculatory. Thoughts. There's no benefit from that when learning about the lore of Satyr. All of that being said, even it being in favor of Marcobius, its just hypothetical and like I said (as you may have ignored) when you google Saturn and Satyr, that's exactly the impression both of you and Haploid's edit is going to give. Because there are other iterations in media. If it wasn't saying "Saturn + Satyr meant Penis" or was drawn from the word Penis vice versa, then sure I don't really mind it staying there and won't just continue to edit it. Perhaps you should just make it more specific and say that it was in theory and was just an opinion being made. This really shouldn't be something to be so attatched to. This isn't about Marcobius after all, it's about Satyr. Netero1015:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Sorry to trouble you, but I've just had a report at the 3RR noticeboard booted back for insufficient formatting. I'm helplessly untechy and went next to their specimen report and made an even greater hash of that, which I haven't dared post. I wonder if you could guide me thru my failed attempt -
Page:A. E. Housman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User being reported:Galileeblack
@Sweetpool50: Hi Sweetpool50, sorry I'm only just now able to look at this. Is this still current? It looks to me like you tried to "roll your own" report rather than clicking on the button "Click here to create a new report" at the top of that page (WP:AN3). Consequently your report was declined by Bbb23 as "malformed". If you still want to pursue this you should try clicking on the button and:
1. Replace "<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->" with "Galileeblack" (there are two instances of this).
2. Replace "<!-- Place name of article here -->" with "A. E. Housman".
3. Replace the various instances of "[diff]" and "[link]" by the appropriate diffs and links.
4. Add any comments after the "Comments" section, and sign your name.
Note: I'm replying here (with a ping) to keep the discussion all in one place (I'll also put a pointer to this reply on your talk page). Paul August☎15:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweetpool50: No what? Your second attempt still had several errors. In particular the field "User being reported:", also no link in the field "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:" You could see this by comparing your report with, for example, the one right above it. Paul August☎02:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your Edit summaries mentioned WP:lINKSPAM not WP:LINKVIO. Did you check to see if the links to the works removed are under copyright? I doubt that they all are. If you did check then you can go ahead an remove them. As for links to demonax home page, since there are no copyrighted texts on that page, there would be no violation of copyright. Paul August☎23:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main ones I noticed were links to Demosthenes' Speeches and a few fragment collections that were published after 1927 from Loeb Classical Library. I think they are in that ambiguous zone for copyright, but I think we generally err on the side of caution there (?) while a lot of sites don't. Also my main motivation for removing the links is that they were all added by one user, User:Fredmond4 back in 2013, which made me very suspicious about the purpose of adding them - it looked very promotional.
It seems to me that if the website stores copyrighted material though, we probably shouldn't link to it at all? I'm not sure what the official policy there is, but given it appears to be somebody's personal web page I figured linking to it wasn't the best either way. - car chasm (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the policy on WP:LINKSPAM that I was following was "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." - car chasm (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe many of the works you've removed links to are in the public domain, so OK to link to. (I think that it probably true for most of the works on Demonax). Not linking to any website which might contain copyrighted somewhere on it, would mean not linking any websites, including Wikipedia. As for spam regardless of the motives of the original linker, these links are not spam, they are extremely valuable links. Paul August☎23:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - I see your point on the copyright there that we would be too exclusive there. I wonder about the value in every case: it looks like it's just linking to plain text versions of the texts? I suppose that is valuable if we don't have any links to wikisource, etc. though. Before I considered the copyright angle I did think also that they'd get added back (by someone other than the WP:SPA) if they were needed - I went directly from that user's contribution to find demonax links so any that were added by someone else weren't touched. But if you want to revert any of the others that don't link to copyrighted material, I don't have any concerns anymore now that we've discussed it. I'll also stop removing them entirely. :). - car chasm (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
First Macedonian War has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog FarmTalk15:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Paul for your contribution. I undid your edits on the archived talk page because we can have the history. I restore your edits in the original talk page after the reverting of Gwinn. Emryswledig (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Emryswledig: A given discussion should occur only once, either on the talk page itself, or in the archives, not both at once. Since I had copied the archived discussions from the archive to the talk page, I deleted them from the archive. But since my edits were reverted I don't intend to take further action there. Regards, Paul August☎20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that our new information on Castus is frowned upon by some users. I think our theory is worth being mentioned. Thanks. Emryswledig (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I think our theory is worth being mentioned" - That's not up to you to unilaterally decide! This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work - otherwise we would have complete chaos here. Linda Malcor's books and papers have received many scholarly reviews, almost universally negative; a smattering of the more notable ones have been posted to the Lucius Artorius Castus Talk page and are available to view in the Archive. Your co-authored paper with Linda, "Missing Pieces...", thus far has received only one scholarly review (by Bradley Skeen, Journal of Indo-European Studies, 48, 2020, p. 61ff.) and it is devastating. The fact is, you and Linda are fringe authors pushing fringe theories on Wikipedia, which is not allowed, per WP's policies on FRINGE THEORIES and UNDUE WEIGHT. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:FD0A:F611:3ED1:3529 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right Paul. I'm sorry for this insane anonymous user who doesn't want to log in. Please delete this section. Thanks again. Emryswledig (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Echidna (mythology) I took off the picture named "Echidna - Furia alata" because is not an Echidna but a Fury, the name of the picture is wrong, it's only correct the "Furia alata", not the "Echidna". The Echidna in Parco dei Mostri, in Bomarzo (Italy), is near a group of lions, it's for that I changed it. Enric (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Enric: Ah ... I see. If you are sure that photo captioned "Echidna - Furia alata" is not Echidna then you should remove it (giving an edit summary saying so) But I don't think the photograph you replaced it with is needed in the article since a better photo of the Echidna, from the Parco dei Mostri, already exists there, and we don't need two. Paul August☎20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK! I removed it. Since there are no more images of Echidna in the commons category but the one in Parco dei Mostri, I think it's the better option. Best wishes! --Enric (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the archiving edit war on that talk page has, despite your efforts, continued. I came across it while doing RCP and noticed what seems to be several blatant instances of WP:OUTING being thrown from all sides? I would start an ANI thread but I am currently in no state to try and to process the sheer chaos being strewn across that talk. PadgriffinGriffin's Nest16:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Padgriffin: Yes that situation needs dealing with, but I hate taking things to WP:ANI. The WP:OUTING, the edit war, the deleting of other editor's comments, are all serious concerns, not to mention the non-consensual editing and edit warring on the article itself. I am reluctant to administer editorial sanctions myself, for several reasons, but if this keeps up I likely will take some action, or, of course, some other administrator may decide to intervene in the mean time. Hopefully, before then, some editorial consensus will emerge (e.g. see just below). Paul August☎10:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have made a proposal on the talk page that I hope might resolve the issue. I think the proponents of Malcor's theory just want to have their paper and up coming book referenced. Allowing it in the 'Identification with King Arthur' section may placate them. Keeping the main body of the article for mainstream academic opinion and consensus should placate the other posters.
Thus I've suggested their paper followed by Skeen's rebuttal is placed in that section.
Any reference to their up-coming book, or mine, could follow that.
I've tried to simplify the issues in a previous talk section and the proposed new paragraph is concise and avoids long winded explanations.
@TonySullivanBooks: Thanks for attempting to resolve things there. It is to be hoped that this, or something like it, will succeed. Otherwise (see just above) some administrative action will probably be required. I would really like to avoid that! Paul August☎10:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul,
How can I delete my account on wikipedia or make it inactive?
The user 2603:8000:cf40:2edb:1cf5:d166:9aae:6c70 aka (Redacted) (blocked) is stalking on my user talk page and he 'spams' everywhere.
Please delete my account since I'm not interested in editing Wikipedia since it is controlled by this user and his friends. Thanks. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Artoriusfadianus: I'm very sorry that you want to stop contributing to Wikipedia. Perhaps there would be a way to resolve the problems you've been having instead. If you think another editor is harassing you, there are ways of dealing with that, see WP:HARASS. And please note: no editor (or group of editors) "controls" a Wikipedia article, see WP:OWN. If you think any editors are violating this Wikipedia policy, then there are ways of dealing with that too. However it is not possible to delete an account, see WP:UNC. Your account could be blocked so that it could no longer be used, see WP:BLOCK. But I don't see the need for that, since you can simply stop using it. Regards, Paul August☎11:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
The above-named person states his birth-year is wrong in the article. I realize that is not a reason to change it, but it's also unsorted, so shouldn't be removed.
I'm banned from editing user-facing pages in Wikipedia for, IMO, refusing not to note that I was being bullied. I'm pretty sure this post is not in violation of my ban.
Sorry about the delay. Someone claiming to be Jan reported, on a Facebook thread related to a Wikipedia article, that his birth year was reported incorrectly on Wikipedia, and he was (he said) unable to correct it. Obviously, he might not be able to verify it was him, but I rechecked the guidelines, and WP:BLP (I can't find the specific NOTFAMOUS link) suggests that personal information about a non-famous living person should not be listed unless he gives permission. — Arthur Rubin(talk)03:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: Well, meanwhile, someone did change the birth-year to 1950, trying apparently, to link to the Facebook thread you refer to, but the link given does not work, and I am not certain this would be considered to be a reliable source anyway, so I've removed the date altogether. Paul August☎10:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aeolus (son of Hellen), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Locrian and Amphissa.
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
Hi. By "editorial consensus" do you mean it's rape if the majority say it is, and not rape if the majority say it isn't? People don't know what rape is anymore to the point that we have to be at the mercy of the internet court to say if a person sexually assaulted without their consent because they were unconscious was raped or not? --FábioScorpio (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the links provided by JayBeeEll above. Editorial consensus does not determine if something is true or not, rather it is used on Wikipedia as the best way to determine whether the weight of expert opinion has determined that something is true or not. In this case the weight of expert opinion does not seem to support describing Selene as having raped anyone. So even if a majority of Wikipedia's editors thought that Selene ought to be called a rapist, without a supporting expert consensus, we are not allowed to assert such a thing in any article. Paul August☎12:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
I don't see how it misrepresents the source: the gloss is tentative at best given our modern understanding of PIE, and Kerenyi assumes it's Ionian too. Hesychius isn't infallible. Zagreus99 (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way Zagreus has a Hellenic origin based on our now very precise understanding of IE phonology. I won't comment that without a source, however it is still the case that Kerenyi is simply interpreting the gloss as Ionian Greek. Zagreus99 (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zagreus99: I'm sorry I haven't had the time to reply to this sooner. I still have some questions about how you've represented what Kerenyi is saying. I will (when I get a chance) open a discussion about this on the talk page. Regards, Paul August☎15:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Hi Paul, it looks like you undid a set of my rollbacks about 25 times with the edit summary "Why did you revert this apparently good edit?" The answer is that these were all done under WP:ROLLBACKUSE #4, "To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban", related to a range block that is visible in my action log. I did leave edit summaries under the first few uses in this set, but the total number was prohibitive to do manually. In general, many of the block-evading edits have been/continue to be simple examples of fixing WP:NOTBROKEN links while ignoring all efforts to be dissuaded from doing so, which was also what resulted in the original block that's being evaded here, in which case these are not actually good edits either. This example of your reversion, for example, simply consisted of changing wikilcnks from Titan (mythology) to Titans and Gaia (mythology) to Gaia; Gaia (mythology) and Titan (mythology) already redirect to the right article, and I think we can also imagine a case in which the mythological figures are not considered the primary topics of the terms, in which case the link would have to be fixed again in the future. If you have a chance to reinstate the rollbacks, I would appreciate it. Best, Dekimasuよ!01:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to make the change, but rather to restore the page to its original form; the intention is to prevent an indefinitely blocked user from systematically evading the indefinite block to continue to institute changes like "[[Gaia (mythology)|Gaia]] to [[Gaia]]" across a large range of articles. The reverted edits are generally in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN (and have the potential to create additional links to disambiguation pages in the future). Dekimasuよ!03:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but since having "[[Gaia]]" is clearly better than having "[[Gaia (mythology)|Gaia]]", I don't want to make the change either, and so I don't intend to. Regards, Paul August☎13:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Are you somehow under the impression that the article for Keres does anything at all to cover the topic of Ker, in addition to covering the distinct personifications known as the Keres? And if so, how did you come to that conclusion? - Burner89751654 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As far as I'm aware there isn't really that much to cover concerning Ker, and that article covers all of it. What more do you think could be said? And if there really is a lot more to say, then feel free to create a separate article. Paul August☎00:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Attalus I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the changes I made here were problematic? I'm happy to discuss any of them of course, if you disagree. Perhaps it was an accident? I can't quite tell. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what now? Do you really think it's helpful or in the best interests of the project to impose a block on BrownHairedGirl when a) there's an AN/I ongoing for several days now, which involves her, and sanctions due to behaviour have been requested for other users in that dispute, which you're aware of; b) the AN/I case has been referred to ArbCom; and c) you have not bothered to inform the AN/I thread, or the blocked user? It's not like there aren't any admins well aware of what BHG (and the other involved parties) have written over the last week. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:
For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
OK thanks, and of course apology accepted. Out of curiosity, why do you say this? I didn't think you said anything which needed to be apologized for. Paul August☎15:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this revert, you restored the word "Greek" (from Macedonia incorporates most of the territories of ancient Macedon to Greek Macedonia incorporates most of the territories of ancient Macedon (emphasis added), but your edit summary stated The topic of this article is about the geographic region of Greece, so "Greek" here is redundant and misleading. I'm confused. Do you believe the word "Greek" should be in this sentence or not? (For the record, I believe it should be there, at least in this first instance, to differentiate from North Macedonia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!11:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61: Sorry yes, I (lacking sufficient coffee) misunderstood the edit I was trying to revert! And yes that edit summary did reflect my then view. But after I read the article more carefully and thought about it some more I realized that "Greek' was probably better there. So I've restored the original version. Sorry for the confusion. Paul August☎11:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, would you happen to be aware of what it is that happened to our article on Chaos? You seem to have been the main author of that page, though it is now a redirect to Chaos (cosmogony), where that article's information is accompanied by some other (in certain cases, perhaps questionably related) examples of "Chaos". I was somewhat confused by this recently, but I thought asking you directly might be a good idea, as I think the Greek Chaos is deserving of its own page. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you can see from the revision history of that article, that article was merged into Chaos (cosmogony) by Dbachmann. I don't think there was any discussion about this (at least I don't remember any). I did (and do) think that that the Greek Chaos is deserving of its own page, but for whatever reason I chose to go along with the merge. But if you want to recreate a separate article, go ahead, I would support that. Paul August☎13:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I had mostly been confused that no one (particularly yourself) had opposed the merge. As a separate article seems the sensible course of action, I will hopefully create one soon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
You reverted a minor edit that I did for Zelus (Zeal), while you changed it to Zelus (Glory). What is the reason for that change? Zelus or Ζήλος, in greek means literally zeal while Kleos or Κλέος means glory. Please do not change it again. Alkiviadis (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alkiviadis: In ancient Greek ζῆλος, in addition to meaning fervor or zeal, can also mean pride, honor, or glory (see LSJ). In particular, as the corresponding note in the text explains, the translations being use there are Gantz's. Gantz's translation are perfectly fine and there is no need to change them. But even if we were going to use a different set of translations, they would need to be sourced, and we would also have to change what the note says about whose translations we are using. I'm changing it back. Paul August☎11:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need a translation to speek my native language. If you need a reference, you can always check the article for Zelus on wikipedia. Glory was represented in the greek pantheon by Aglaia, one of the Charites, Clio the muse and also by Eucleia, of the younger Charites. I will move this chat to the article talk, so that we reveive another opinion. Alkiviadis (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alkiviadis: You, of course, may not need a translation to read ancient Greek, but most of our readers do. And, by policy, when we provide a translation we need to also supply our readers with a reliable published source; our own private knowledge is not enough (see WP:VERIFY). Paul August☎12:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So zeal does not give any hint that is directly connected to Zelus. The word for both in greek is Zelos or Zelus if you will. Also I do reference the article from wikipedia. Please check it, Zelus. The word for glory in ancient greek is cleos or kleos. As a reference to cleos, you can take in mind all the names of ancient or modern greeks finishing with -cles, like Heracles, Pericles, Androcles etc. It is a reference to cleos or glory. Alkiviadis (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Gantz is a well regarded scholar, and his book is a quality source. If he thinks that "glory" is the appropriate translation to give in this context, then there is no problem with us presenting things in the same manner; I don't see that there is any reason to not follow Gantz here. Checking another source, I notice Robin Hard's Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology gives "Emulation or Glory". – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
English and Greek words don't correspond one-to-one, words often have many meanings, more than one word in one language can be appropriately translated as the same word in another, and words often have meanings in modern Greek that they didn't in ancient Greek. The new Cambridge Greek Lexicon shows some of the variety and shifts in the meaning of ζῆλος and associated words, beginning with ζῆλος as "1. competitive feeling of jealousy, jealousy, envy" followed by "2. spirit of emulation, admiration, emulation... (personif., son of Styx, brother of Victory, Power Strength) Emulation Hes." and three other meanings (bold emphasis per lexicon). Later of course we had Simon the Zealot as an eager servant, epitomising a shift which eventually gave us English's "zeal" but which we should not read back into Hesiod. NebY (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like you should be an experienced enough editor to know that it is improper to remove a merge tag that has just been added to an article. If you object, use your words on the talk page. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
Hi Paul. I wonder if you would (or if you know anyone else who would) be interested sometime in the foreseeable future on collaborating on making a better article about the Hindu–Arabic numerals and their history. There are a few editors who have diligently worked over the past few years to minimize or eliminate any mention of India from Arabic numerals, usually in a series of salami-slice edits spread out over time. I'm not quite sure what the motivation is, maybe ideological? Here's a subset of them so you can see what I mean:
A while back I started a complaint about this at talk:Arabic numerals but after getting a couple of links inserted I stopped pressing for more significant changes.
However, the current article at Arabic numerals does not do a very good job serving a broad audience of readers, because it has been artificially constrained to a very narrow scope of only discussing the development of the numeral glyphs in N. Africa and Europe from the 10th–17th century (that part of the content is okay), and eschewing any broader context, broader historical analysis/comparison, or description of how the numerals are practically used. The anti-Indian editors for a long time prevented the page from even linking to Hindu–Arabic numeral system or History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system (because of "Hindu" in the name??), and any time someone tries to add material about how the number system works (arithmetic, etc.), jump in with weird wikilawyering about how that is out of scope for the title "Arabic numerals" because it isn't about numerals per se.
Anyway, I think before trying to actually make some kind of broader community appeal about this, it would probably be a good idea to write up a draft proposal for a merged article so there is something concrete to compare, which means actually doing the research/writing. But I don't feel like I have the expertise or bandwidth to tackle it as a project by myself (and have a bunch of other Wikipedia articles I'd also like to work on). Maybe with a few editors we could come up with some kind of outline, list of high quality sources, and start at filling in the details, then solicit broader help filling out a more complete draft, making diagrams, etc., before finally taking the matter to the broader Wikipedia community for discussion.
@Jacobolus:Hi. As I have no particular expertise on this topic, and my current interests lie elsewhere, I'm afraid I not going to be of much help here. Here's one thought. Even though I'm sure that many people use the term "Arabic numerals" to refer to the "Hindu–Arabic numeral system", they are really two different things and probably warrant two different articles. I think the navigational issue can probably be effectively ameliorated by appropriate linking between the two articles (e.g. see this edit), and rewriting both articles a bit, to make them more appropriately aware of each other.
I will continue to follow edits and discussions related to these topics, and try to give some more thought about the issues you've raised here, and at Talk:Hindu–Arabic numeral system and Talk:Arabic numerals.
Fair enough. I don't have significant expertise either, I just think it's worth Wikipedia covering thoroughly and not politicizing. –jacobolus(t)09:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been swamped elsewhere and haven't kept up well enough at FAR. Attalus I needs a Featured Article Save Award nomination, and because I didn't follow closely enough, I'm unsure who to nominate, and don't want to leave someone out. The original writers/FAC nominators are not eligible for FASA; I'm not sure how to handle this in your case, as the article's FAC was in the days when the original writer usually wasn't the nominator, although it was done on your behalf. So I could squeak in a FASA for you if that seems the right thing to do, even though you're basically the original writer. But more importantly, who helped bring it over the line? Was there anyone whose work was crucial in saving the star other than SnowFire, who I should add to the FASA nomination? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
As an administrator active at WT:SPOILER, I wanted to ask your input on a matter. Please forgive me if I'm out of line.
CNNsOneViewer (talk·contribs) has been editing Drop the Dead Donkey explicitly to remove spoilers (I've removed the appalling spoilers for the character endings, which have stood here for too long; Last spoiler removal). Adakiko (talk·contribs) reverted the first bout of edits, citing WP:NOTCENSORED. CNNsOneViewer replied by edit-warring and alleging Adakiko of bully[ing] me because I'm a so-called 'newbie'.. so stop; a "newbie" whose very first edit was editing their common.js. Seemingly an SPA and experienced editor, I wonder if they're evading a ban, sock-puppeting, and/or just disruptively editing. Unaccustomed with such, I didn't want to overreact and begin any of the formal processes, but though I'd check with somebody whose mop might signify experience with something similar. Thanks for your time! — Fourthords | =Λ= |03:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether something is or is not a "spoiler" is irrelevant. So no, I wouldn't revert them on that account. The only relevant question is whether their edits have, in your editorial opinion, make the article better or worse. Paul August☎11:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I "bothered". What do you me take me for? However your edit summary didn't help me understand why you think that statement needs a source. Each of the sources given in the note 2: Jost, s.v. Styx; Antoni, s.v. Styx; Grimal, s.v. Styx; Tripp, s.v. Styx; Parada, s.v. Styx; Smith, s.v. Styx, says that the mythological Styx is both a river and a goddess. Do you dispute this? If you agree that "River Styx" is a name for the river (and I've been assuming you do, am I wrong?), then you must agree that River Styx is also a name for the goddess. I'm really trying to understand your position here. Paul August☎11:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Socking is pretending to be two different people by using two different accounts. Using two different IP addresses is not socking. Depending on how one connects, you might have a different IP every time you log on. Paul August☎02:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Can you help me with the section you erased? I can give you the links to the sources but I can't format because I lost my WP password, so I can't edit on my desktop.
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plouto (mother of Tantalus), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Smith.
Hello Astrid, I'm sorry for your loss. I'm assuming this is about adding a death date to Friedwardt Winterberg. According to Wikipedia policy, we can add this information if we can find a published source for this, please see WP:VERIFY:
"Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it."
Flat Earth, Appolo Moon landing denials, Young Earth Creationism etc are well known Fringe theories and are also categorised as Fringe theories in Wikipedia. What are the procedures in English Wikipedia to categorically deem a claim as Fringe theory if a new claim is raised as science in the future?
I am not familiar with all the platforms that are available in Wikipedia, so I am unsure where to raise this discussion. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paul, I have been going around splitting my time with other projects and have notices that some articles that I have been watching like Hecatoncheires, you have significantly expanded. I am curious if you plan on expanding the article on the Minotaur. I am starting to create a separate userspace for edits, so if you are you can always add them to that. If not, that is fine. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Your skills in Greek myth is currently unmatched so I thought I would ask about the Minotaur. I will look at Hecatoncheires and see what is needed. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to collab and expand the article on the Minotaur, I feel you are better skilled at adding and writing those older sources and texts that I. Not yet sure I am gonna try that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paul, sorry to bother you. I have started a separate revision draft for the Minotaur and have come across a minor problem. I am currently citing sources through sfn format so as to make things less messy for me and other editors out there. I am not sure how I would do sfn for the ancient greek texts that I shall be citing and also am confused as to why they cite page numbers in decimals on other pages. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jack. Ancient Greek texts are not divided into "pages". For example Homer's Iliad is divided into "books" and lines numbers, so for example "Iliad 4.233" means the 233rd line of book 4. Paul August☎14:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There is a problematic IP that is 24.54.16.215 they have their edits reversed and in edit summaries they are not assuming good faith by calling reverts made to their edits as vandalism. I have gave them a final warning for vandalism. But after that, I read the problematic edit summaries. I wanted to bring this to your attention. Thanks, Felicia(talk)13:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Felicia777: All the recent editing to Sine qua non is an edit war, and all of the editors making those edits are WP:edit warring. So all of these editors could be subject to sanctions for that. However none of the edits, including the IP's, qualify as WP:vandalism. What this is is a typical editorial dispute about article content. Such disputes should be resolved through discussion not by edit warring. Please read WP:RCD, on how to resolve such disputes. Such resolution will require that editors listen to each other, and try to see the other editor's point of view. Being willing to try to find a suitable compromise. Usually when another editor feels strongly that something is wrong with an article, then the article almost certainly could be improved. For example in this case, perhaps a better exemplar of the use of sine qua non could be found. I hope this helps. Paul August☎15:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Hello Paul August, Matticusmadness has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
The person who reverted edits have removed sourced content, the user who deleted the sourced content needs to discuss which points of disagreement with parts of the content in the talk page without removing the entire addition. I am not certain why you reverted edits after you have noticed verifiable sourced content being removed which is a violation of wikipedia terms.
@Potymkin:. Hi. You are a new editor and may not understand how things work here. That something is true does not mean it should be in an article. The content of an article is decided by the consensus of its editors (please see WP:consensus). Right now there is no consensus for the inclusion of your content. It's fine to make changes to an article, but when another editor reverts your changes you shouldn't just reinsert them, instead you should discuss your proposed changes with the other editor as well as any other interested editors (please see WP:BRD). What you've been doing, by repeatedly adding your proposed changes, is called "edit warring" please see WP:editwar. Your editing privileges can be removed if you continue to do this, see WP:block. What you should do is make the case for the inclusion of your edits on that article's talk page, and see what other editors have to say. I'm going to revert your additions again. Please don't add them again without an editorial consensus. Thanks, and best regards, Paul August☎18:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Potymkin has continued by reinstating without consensus their edits of Hyperborea (that "The Greeks proceeded to write of Hyperborea as a place that existed in ancient Libya")[10] and Atlas (mythology) ("Atlas is a Libyan god")[11], now asserting in edit summaries that reverting their edits to the prior stable version is "attemping WP:ADVOCACY". NebY (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atlas is a Libyan god and a Titan in Greek mythology, this statement is supported by modern scholars and is verifiable [1][12] Atlas endures punishment in North africa in Greek mythology is also a common belief among greeks and is verifiable (Hesiod, Theogony517–520) he is also commonly known locally as the first ruler of Mauretania in north africa [2] as the lead states:
he is commonly identified as the local god of Atlas Mountains in northwest Africa and was said to be the first King of Mauretania (modern-day Morocco and Algeria, not to be confused with the modern-day country of Mauritania)
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Hi Paul, it seems you can't attach PDFs using the "Email this user" feature. Would you perhaps be able to shoot me a quick test email using that feature, and then I'll reply with the PDFs? Best, Michael Aurel (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
.jpg)
_by_Ron.jpg)
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
Arbitration
Jackmcbarn
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Interface administrator changes
Atsme 💬 📧 17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Bureaucrat changes
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BrownHairedGirl_blocked. Black Kite (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
