User talk:Paul August/Archive28

Pandora's curiosity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Despite my recent tribulations, I haven't lost faith in Wikipedia yet, since I have a high regard for admins such as yourself and User:NinjaRobotPirate who appear make decisions based on objectivity and fairness, rather than emotion.92.9.144.164 (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Anchors away

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

;-) Paul August ☎ 12:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Haploidavey: User now blocked for 3 months, see User talk:AmarisMagic. Paul August ☎ 14:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Good, and thanks for the note. The name was familiar but rang the wrong bell. Three months hence, I'll be on the lookout (hm. This section has a nautical theme. Yo ho ho, and all that) Haploidavey (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Haploidavey: Yeah it took awhile for the right bells to go clank in my head too ;-) Paul August ☎ 14:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

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

Hi Lptx. I'm nobodies sock, nor is anyone mine ;-) I've reverted your edit—which removed sourced content—from that article, exactly once (so far). You on the other hand are in violation of WP:3RR, and are editing that article against the prevailing editorial consensus, and are almost certainly headed for a block. Please stop. You should instead try to reach consensus on that article's talk page. Paul August ☎ 23:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul August visit the talk page - this is the common concern. Since you have not visited/read the issues at talk page and trying to be armchair analyst End of the discussion.Lptx (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've visited and read that talk page some time ago. Paul August ☎ 01:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry at Arabic Numerals

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

)

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

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

ANI close

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

In my view nothing useful was going on there, nor did it seem to be going anywhere good. Moreover I saw nothing that would require the intervention of an administrator. Paul August ☎ 21:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Two admins weighed in and found problematic behavior. There was clutter in the back and forth, this is true. It was still unclear where it was going to go; many ANIs end up with the community deciding things (ANI is not only for admin intervention). Most importantly the behavior is continuing. Please unclose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

What behavior is continuing exactly? Diffs please. It's not clear to me what you think should happen, sanctions? That discussion seemed to have degenerated into you and Sandy bickering back and forth. And in my opinion you weren't doing yourself any good. Paul August ☎ 12:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes as I noted there I was aware it was becoming cluttered. It is hard to understand how you could ask "what kind of behavior" if you actually read the thread. I will let this go and refile if it goes on much longer with fresh diffs. I do not think the close was appropriate but I will let this be for now. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't ask "what kind of behaviour". You said "Most importantly the behavior is continuing", and I asked you to provide diffs of such "continuing" behavior, so I could understand what edits you were talking about. Could you please do that? Thanks in advance. Paul August ☎ 15:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=11&contribs=user&target=SandyGeorgia&offset=20180330221700

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=11&contribs=user&target=Colin&offset=20180330221700

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

I will, thanks. Paul August ☎ 15:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I am sure that Colin is grateful to you for cluttering up and derailing the ANI. The diffs show Colin continuing the campaign and attacks on Doc James; especially the comment at Doc James TP. The over-the-top edge has been toned down which is why I am not going to AN to ask for a close review; I will be refiling if Colin ramps back up. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC) (perhaps this needed clarification Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC))

@Jytdog:. Did you see my last response just above? Could you please reply? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 15:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see my reply just above your post. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, I saw it but I don't see any diffs. Can you please specify (with diffs) any edits you find objectionable? I'd really appreciate it. Paul August ☎ 15:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but I am not spending further time asking you to reverse your close. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: This no longer is about the ANI close. This is now about your—so far— unubstantiated accusations.

Above, you’ve accused, presumably Colin and one might reasonably infer SandyGeorgia, of “continuing” “problematic behavior.” I’ve asked you three times to provide diffs of such “continuing” behavior, and you’ve been either unable or unwilling to do so. Such accusations against fellow editors should not be made without evidence. I will ask you again, please provide diffs.

Look, it may be that when you look at the relevant edit histories you will find you were mistaken and that no such examples of inappropriate edits exist. That’s ok, we all make mistakes. But then you owe Colin and SandyGeorgia an apology. If however you still stand by your accusations, then you need to supply diffs. Not doing so would be inappropriate, and might warrant some further action.

So your only good choices would seem to be to provide diffs, or apologize.

Paul August ☎ 16:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

hi

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

Two things I'm noticing @Ozzie10aaaa:

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

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

Size of talk page

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

Proportion

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

List of Mesopotamian deities

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

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

Combustion scientist

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

If no mention of combustion science is made in the article, then I don't think the category belongs. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

From the article (Fluid Dynamics section) -- "the discovery of the classic flow solution to blast waves, and the co-discovery of the ZND detonation model of explosives. During the 1930s, Von Neumann became an authority on the mathematics of shaped charges," etc. Is this not sufficient? Eleuther (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

What I'd really like to see is some reliable source calling von Neumann a "combustion scientist", and some mention of that in the article, before adding that category. Just because someone does work related to combustion, it doesn't necessarily make them a combustion scientist. Paul August ☎ 16:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've evidently encountered yet another Wikipedian-who-is-never-wrong. Discussion closed, you're not worth talking to further. Eleuther (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Paul August ☎ 16:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To be more precise (sorry to revive this), you seem to be saying that a scientist such as von Neumann, who made basic and authoritative contributions to the science of combustion, should not be considered to be a combustion scientist, because there is no cited source that explicitly calls him a "combustion scientist." Is that right? That's nonsense. It's just you, floundering around to find a way to avoid admitting you make a mistake. Eleuther (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I would settle for a cited source which says he did combustion science. I don't know anything about "combustion science", I'm a mathematician. And I think of von Neumann as primarily a mathematician, whose mathematical work has many applications to many fields, but that doesn't make him a practitioner of each of those fields. That's just my opinion, though. I'm often wrong, and I might be wrong here. You have a different opinion. But really, neither of our opinions matter. What matters is what reliable sources say. And as an aside please stop with the personal attacks. Paul August ☎ 19:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, stupid-head, I will stop with the personal attacks. The article already describes some contributions to the science of combustion, as I already pointed out. So there's no need for another source. Instead, I think you would need to provide a source to the effect that being an "authority on the mathematics of shaped charges" does not constitute a contribution to combustion science. By this I mean some source other than your own acclaimed ignorance of the matter (I don't know anything about "combustion science"). Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eleuther: I've copied this discussion to Talk:John von Neumann#Should von Neumann be categorized as a combustion scientist?, please add further discussion there. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 11:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Already

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

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 19:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I could really use some asssistance. Bleucheeses (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What with? Paul August ☎ 22:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've edited on here for years. I think I am starting to see why Wikipedia has difficulties getting enough editors and may not be taken seriously overall. People on here are fairly ridiculous. Bleucheeses (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Many editors are good, some are not, not sure I can help you with that. Paul August ☎ 23:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

If not you, then who? I could look for other people, not hopeful about it. Bleucheeses (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what it is exactly you want form me. Can you be more specific? Paul August ☎ 12:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of combustion scientists category

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

Hi, Paul August. I think the CfD page is not really the proper place to pursue your beef with me. I suggest the following change. I will modify my comment to say "most of" rather than "all" (to satisfy Trovatore), and to remove the word "toxic" (for you). I will also remove the three subsequent replies, on the grounds that these are things that people don't want to have to read on a CfD page. But I will only do this if you and Trovatore agree that it's okay. I've already apologized to Trovatore for the factual error, and I apologize to you now for the use of the word "toxic." I hope that you will agree to this change. Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eleuther, I've already replied to your suggestion at Trovatore's talk page. Paul August ☎ 20:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Paul August. I think, in general, it would be a good idea to avoid polluting other users' talk pages with your dispute with me. So I will answer here, instead of there. Nothing in my comment claimed that I was not one of the disputants (clearly I am one). And I didn't say anyone's comments should be "discounted," I was only suggesting that they should all be taken in context. Eleuther (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Eleuther, thanks for responding here, as I asked. And I'm sorry that I hadn't noticed your edit above before I replied on Trovatore's talk page. This is what you wrote: "Note that all the comments so far are by disputants in the toxic discussion re von Neumann, and so should perhaps be discounted". So you did in fact suggest that editor's comments be "discounted". Paul August ☎ 22:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I did use the word, but nothing suggests that I meant it to exclude my own comments. (And you should say editors', not editor's -- sorry to mention it, but stuff like that bugs me.) Eleuther (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eleuther: Yes well, as I said, I didn't think you wanted to exclude your comments. The question is whose comments did you want to exclude? Paul August ☎ 23:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Geez, why do you go to such a convoluted effort to misread what I wrote. I was simply saying that all the comments, including my own, should be taken in the context of the dispute. Eleuther (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eleuther: Look, perhaps that's what you meant to write, but that's not what you wrote. And I didn't misread what you wrote. I don't think calling the discussion "toxic" and saying some unspecified editors who were "disputants" in that discussion, should have their comments "discounted" could be read by anyone as anything other than as insulting. You've apologized for using the word "toxic" and I've thanked you for that—of course many other editors who see (or saw) your use of that word, will probably not see your apology. But please don't undo your apology by now saying that what you wrote wasn't insulting. Paul August ☎ 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Back off a bit please. I wrote that "nothing suggests that I meant it to exclude my own comments." By this, I clearly meant that nothing suggests that I meant that that my own comments were not also coming from a disputant, and so should be discounted on the same basis as the others. Your idea that I'm claiming a special status for my own comments, is false. Eleuther (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eleuther: I'll take you at your word when you say you weren't trying to claim any special status for your comments. Fine. But can't you see how what you wrote would be interpreted that way? (I mean, one doesn't usually suggest that their own comments should be discounted) And even though you weren't claiming special status, your comment was still insulting to the other editors involved in that discussion. By the way, have you apologized to any of them? It would be a nice gesture of good will. Look, I think you are a well meaning editor, who has gotten off on the wrong foot now with several other editors. What I'm trying to do here is help you understand why, and how to avoid doing so in the future. You've apologized to me, and I've accepted your apology. I bear you no ill will. Shall we let bygones be bygones? (offers olive branch...) Paul August ☎ 14:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "all the comments so far" clearly includes my own comments. It's not a matter of taking me at my word. The phrase sez what it sez. It can only be interpreted otherwise by someone who is willfully looking for grounds for an attack. Eleuther (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eleuther: So your saying it's not possible that someone might think that "all the comments do far" might mean "all the comments so far (except mine of course)"? In any case, even if one were to understand what you wrote to mean "all the comments so far (including mine)", as I said above the comment was still insulting. Paul August ☎ 15:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You've lost me again. Where is the insult? Is it in the use of the word "disputant?" The word is simply descriptive. Also (and you may take this as an insult if you wish), you should have written "you're" instead of "your", as the second word of your comment, if you want to be taken seriously. Eleuther (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eleuther: The insult, as I though I'd made clear, is in calling the discussion "toxic", and by inference, at least some of the editors in that discussion. Paul August ☎ 16:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Though? Are you so drunk you can't type? I already proposed removing the word "toxic" from the comment, with your approval, but you declined to give your approval. And anyhow, calling a dispute toxic is not an insult to any of the participants. It just means (here) that they are no longer listening to each other, but are simply exchanging impassioned assertions. Eleuther (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eleuther: That you offered to remove "toxic" doesn't make your original statement any less insulting. What's more you're obviously now trying to be insulting (You should really take onboard WP:NPA). Paul August ☎ 17:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Paul, please move your comment somewhere more appropriate, and I will respond to it. I should be allowed to record my vote in peace, without having it subject to attack. (Just as I should be allowed to leave a message on another user's talk page, without having it attacked.) Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not attacking your vote. I'm commenting on it. And so it seems the most appropriate place for it. Where do you want me to move it to? Paul August ☎ 19:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

How about here? I'll reply here, and then, if you wish, you can republish the thread somewhere else, such as in a Comment in the CfD, but please not as part of anyone's vote. Eleuther (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The CFD page is a discussion not a vote. My comment is a reply to your comment, and is just where it ought to be. Moving it here makes no sense at all. It is intended to be read by everyone who looks at that discussion. In particular it is meant to be read by the closer of that discussion, so that they will be able to make a more informed closure. As you can see by looking at other such discussions this is standard practice. Paul August ☎ 21:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Okey, never mind. Eleuther (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Paul, I would welcome your response to my reply to you on the CfD page, which is where you seem to think the discussion should be taking place. (Please ignore the angry interjections by Bialy, which seem to be unrelated to the issue that's being considered.) Thanks in advance for your response. Eleuther (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. I would welcome a response, regarding the meaning of WP:CATDEF, before the CfD discussion comes to a close. Can you do that? Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Eleuther, I think the meaning of CATDEF is clear, and I think I've said all I need to say there about it. I don't understand your argument. But I think you are misunderstanding what CATDEF says. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree? I will offer here an analogy for you think about. While there are certainly such things as the science of lightbulbs, and the science of telephones, would you think it appropriate to categorize Thomas Edison as a "lightbulb scientist" or Alexander Graham Bell as a "telephone scientist"? And if not why not? In any case I will try to write up a response for you there. Paul August ☎ 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Paul, there's nothing inherently wrong with the term "lightbulb scientist" -- its meaning is plain, anyone reading it would understand what it means. And if Edison isn't one, who is? If such a category existed on Wikipedia, Edison would obviously qualify for it. I agree that such a category probably shouldn't exist, but not because the term itself is somehow illegitimate, or because of the paucity of sources describing people with the exact words "lightbulb scientist." (If there's language in WP:CAT that supports such grounds, can you please point it out? Please please? I honestly can't find it.) In other words, the category doesn't seem to violate WP:CAT, per se. However, it would seem to violate WP:OVERCAT, and perhaps others. (I will now embark on my response on the CfD page.) Eleuther (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think most people would read "lightbulb scientist" as naming a profession. In which case, CATDEF would require sources assigning that profession, by name, to Edison. Because of this natural reading as naming a profession, naming the category of scientists whose work is related to lightbulbs as "lightbulb scientists", would be confusing, at best. (See my reply at the CFD). Paul August ☎ 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Paul, thanks. I myself think most people are not fools. There's no real profession of "combustion scientist." At least there's no support on Wikipedia for the existence of such a profession, that I know of. There's certainly no article with that title. However, both combustion and scientist are long-established terms, with long WP articles supporting them. So I think that most people would read the term in the plain and obvious way, as a descriptive term combining these two long-established concepts. No currently paid-up membership card is required. Eleuther (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy Adminship

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

Kpgjhpjm (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Paul August ☎ 17:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about context

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

Not just one comment. At the beginning of the section Hijiri 88 gives diffs for a dozen examples, of personal attacks you've made against him. Have you read them? I've seen others. In addition there is this dicussion, linked to by Tarage. Paul August ☎ 17:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That was 8 years ago. Nothing to do with anything now. And I did listen to people who had valid complaints and reworded things. Anyway, I didn't respond to every single thing Hijiri said, because I assumed people would just click on the link and read things in context and realize it all nonsense. Most of them in the first section of his complaints are from the same conversation I put in the hatnote and did clarify.

As for the next section, if someone shows up at that many AFDs and elsewhere just to repeat the same lies about someone and/or a wikiproject, refusing to stop doing that, of course I respond to him. And he followed me around constantly, even yesterday after starting the recent bit, he decides to look up an article I edited previously and remove information I had added about their sales figures [1], I then going and finding a reference for updated sales figures to put back there. He has never edited that article before and the edit summary he put there isn't something he'd usually do, not how he wrote it. Would me getting links to over a dozen places where he showed up after I edited an article just to edit after me, make any difference in this case? Also one of his links [2] show me telling him off for stalking me and then making a comment on my talk page just to irritate me I assume. I responded to ask him to stop stalking, he clearly violating WP:stalking there. I also mentioned in my reply his edit summary he used when proposed deleting a perfectly valid article of mine [3], he making ridiculous claims there, which in the AFD discussion everyone agreed it passed the WP:GNG, and he withdrew his nomination. He has on multiple times claimed it was WP:Pointy when in fact it was not. He has stated he claims I did it to take deleted material from the other article and put it there, which makes no sense at all, saying that in the withdraw statement of the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mottainai Grandma, and even discussing this on a talk page [4]. He seems to believe people are out to get him. Dream Focus 18:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Being reverted by you...

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

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

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

Happy first edit day

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

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 14:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Hellenic actions

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

Thanks, good catch.

... for the correction on Cyclops

Your welcome. Paul August ☎ 20:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Question ...

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

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

You have a fearsomely long contents list, but...

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

After a brief look at their edit histories, I'm not seeing much of a connection. Paul August ☎ 19:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the peek. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit at Athena!

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

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

Discussion to be canceled for defamation of a person

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

Changes to Thucydides Article

Hi Paul,

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

Hi Nbhard. Thanks for being willing to discuss this. I'm familiar with the work you cited. The most serious issue I had with your edits were that they copied long passages directly from the cited work without quotations. This is potentially a serious problem, raising possible questions of copyright infringement and/or plagiarism. If you want to add content similar to what you added, you either need to use quotations, or rephrase the content in your own words. See for example Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Paul August ☎ 13:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Paul, thank you for bringing this to my attention as I do agree this could be a potential problem. I will be sure to use quotations and or summarize the information with originality in the future. Thanks Nbhard (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Rise of Macedon --> Hellenic or Greek Kingdom

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

Gaia

Hello,

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

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

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

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

@Bdicoccosix: I see that you have added back the mention of the Captain Planet character Gaia, with a better source (thanks for that, you may want to add that source to the article on the TV show). However, while that source is sufficient to establish the existence of the character in that TV show, it says nothing at all regarding the significance of that cartoon character for the mythological Gaia. Here are some quotes from relevant Wikipedia policies:

• To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as of 03:19, 4 October 2018‎)
• An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. (WP:PROPORTION, as of 09:11, 2 October 2018‎)

Unless you can find a reliable source which discusses the significance of this cartoon character for the mythological character, I think that the mention of the cartoon character should be removed.

Regards, Paul August ☎ 15:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks for fixing the rest of the Classical Greece article -

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

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

How much time must elapse?

How much time must elapse so that it no longer falls under the heading WP:UNDUE? I am just asking, because there was a similar study 15 years ago with the same results, for that see Davis-Kimball & Joachim Burger - [5], and another one by Guba et al. 2011. --Alperich (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no specific timeframe. But it has to be enough to have been discussed and accepted by scholars as at least a significant minority opinion. Paul August ☎ 15:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no other opinion beside the one I have quoted. Since over the past 14 years. Science Advances is, just btw, a peer-reviewed journal, which was even quoted by a Ph.D. scholar in the Biology Department at Grand Valley State University. More than this is not possible in a genetics topic. The only opinion so far recorded was that of Davis-Kimball & Joachim Burger. There was even a tv documentary, first broadcasted by the German state television ZDF in 2004. There is just a tiny detail with this. The funding for new expeditions has been discontinued and the topic was kept silent. I'll take this to the board.--Alperich (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. Paul August ☎ 19:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The decision was: "no red flag". Can we add them now? --Alperich (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disputing whether the sources your trying to use are reliable or not. That's the question you asked at the "Reliable sources/Noticeboard". Rather it's a question of weight. Is that 2018 study significant enough to warrant mention in the article. If other writers begin to discuss the article in their works then it might become noteworthy enough to include but I don't don't think it is now. Paul August ☎ 22:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Writer B debates about Writer A. Is this what you mean? If yes, we can surely warrant mention in the article. --Alperich (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No this is not what I mean. I can find no mention of Amazons anywhere in "Writer A". Paul August ☎ 16:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

But there is mention of Amazons by "writer B" in reference to "writer A"s study. So, my point stands. --Alperich (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

References

You are asserting two things:

1. It "revealed that Amazons may trace their ancestry through female lines to an east Eurasian origin" But I see no mention

2. It "sparked a new debate on the origins of the Amazons.

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

Regarding point 1: You have to prove that Sarmatian female warriors are not the Amazons first.

Regarding point 2: "The current study re-ignites the debate about the Amazons, but geneticists do not meddle in the matters of folklore. While archaeogenetic research cannot resolve questions of cultural customs, it can help getting a more comprehensive insight into the life history of humans behind the culture."

Regarding your question where Nikitin's article has been peer-reviewed: At Grand Valley State University, Department of Biology. Can we add them now? --Alperich (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry still no. Paul August ☎ 14:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you discovered a new problem? --Alperich (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No the same problems, since your comments above don't adequately address the problems I've mentioned. Simply appearing on a university web page does not mean it's been peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed usually means being published in a peer reviewed journal. But even if Nikitin's article was peer-reviewed I don't find it sufficient to support the assertions being made about Krzewińska article. And even if we had sufficient justification for the assertions made about all this, it is entirely too recent for there have been sufficient time for the scholarly consensus to have accepted all this as true. And even if scholarly consensus had accepted all this as true, just because something is true, does not mean that it is significant enough to warrant mention in the article. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

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

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

Epicurus

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

What you say about the quote is an interpretaion unssupported by any source. Paul August ☎ 20:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it takes minimal thinking to see it. Others do. Kolyvansky (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your objective opinion is needed

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

Notice

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

Sources for Pages

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

Unfortunately, as far as I know, none of these are available online. You might try asking this question here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. I think that most of these scholia are only available in Greek. A useful guide to various scholia is Ancient Greek Scholarship by Elenor Dickey available online here: [6]. Good luck. If you find any good online sources for any of these, please let me know.

By the way, if you use a source that cites these scholia, you need to cite that source, and not the scholia itself, unless you've also consulted the scholia directly yourself, and have independently verified that the scholia says what your original source says it does. So for example, if Writer A says that, according Scholia B, Mary was the daughter of John. Then it's OK to write:

John had a daughter named Mary.

But it is NOT OK to write:

John had a daughter named Mary.

Unless you've read what Scholia B says yourself. OK?

Paul August ☎ 16:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Paul August, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Everedux (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

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