User talk:Paul August/Archive26

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For keeping your cool in the midst of a 3RR violation and some personal attacks, by yours truly. Thanks! --Monochrome_Monitor 17:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 19:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocks

Paul, in December 2013 you blocked this IP user indefinitely for vandalism. I trust this was simply a misclick on your part; I've unblocked the IP. DS (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Reversion on Cerberus

I see no discussion about named references on Talk:Cerberus and I don't feel the need to bother other editors with this discussion. If not using named references were a practice determined by consensus, I would have expected to see a discussion. Rather, this seems like a unilateral decision, so I felt that I should ask you directly about reverting my edit. I do not understand the cause for reversion. The only things that I could see that might drive this decision would be the references section outside of the notes section or that you're working on your own version, but I don't understand why this would prohibit named references. Named references are used to combine identical references; I can't fathom how it would be more helpful to have duplicate footnotes, even if they were referring to references in the reference list. I am restoring my original edits that were not related to references in a separate edit, but I will WP:AGF and refrain from cleaning up duplicated references for the time being. Not sure why you couldn't just put the rationale in the edit summary, but the onus should be on you to provide rationale as to why this action isn't WP:OWNy or to demonstrate consensus. —Ost (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ost216. Named references make an article more difficult to edit, and in fact present a considerable barrier to editing, especially to the novice editor. For some articles which rely on a few specific citations, used over and over throughout the article, I can see some advantages (though probably not enough in my view to out weigh the disadvantages). But that is not the case here. Why do you want to change the way this article does its citations? What is the large benefit you see which out weight the disadvantages? You say the onus is on me to say why I want to preserve the status quo, I rather think the onus is on you to say why you want to change it. See for example WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." And by the way if you are going to introduce named references you should choose descriptive names rather than "auto1" and "auto2" etc. There is more that I could say but right now I'm leaving on a trip now and internet access will be limited. Regards, Paul August ☎ 11:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Your revert on Alexander the Great

Hello. Are you aware that your revert added a duplicated link to Macedonia (ancient kingdom)? Macedon, just a couple of words later is a redirect to that article, and the main reason why I reverted the edit by Muntele. And Muntele's seemingly POV edits on a string of other articles, which include replacing "Greece" with "Macedonia", and generally downplaying Greece, is the reason I restored the link to Ancient Greece. Just thought I'd let you know. Thomas.W ^talk 21:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Who'd have thought it!

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

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

Grc incubator project

Dear Paul August, seeing that you are a member of the Wikiproject Greece group and deal mostly with ancient history, I am letting you know that there is currently an ongoing proposal to have an ancient greek wikipedia created, so you are welcomed to participate and share your thoughts, as well as participate in the actual incubator wiki. Best regards. Gts-tg (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Pandora's box

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

Nice to be back, thank you

After User:Peter Damian got rehabilitated, my reason for not editing sort of went away. I have a goal now: to get the Logic article up to good article status. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Tourist and advertisment links in Orpheus

Can we keep Orpheus devoid of tourist links and resolved issues? Such as Thracomania? There is a persistence of tourist stuff by some people and removing sourced material whether of primary or secondary sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.83.40 (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Hathitrust

Dear Paul, I would like to download Buck's "Grammar of Oscan and U." available at Hathitrust. Can I do it through Wikipedia or if not, by what other means? Thank you for the attention.Aldrasto1111:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:Areas of mathematics

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

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

Zeno's paradoxes

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

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

why did you cockblock me

my info was accurate and informational. why dont you understand A E S T H E T I C?--76.21.6.165 (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum

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

No you don't have to say "supposedly" (that would be redundant). And you're not "contradicting yourself", saying "if P" doesn't mean you are asserting that P is true. Paul August ☎ 18:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes you do; if there were, there would be, and that would be that; thus it would not be able to be divided by two to get a smaller one. That sentence is thus nonsensical and contradictory. Esszet (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"just wondering"

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

Hi Wmccrue, and welcome to Wikipedia. In my opinion the artist T Barny is too obscure to use here. Paul August ☎ 22:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the reply! I got too stuck on the Mobius reference, I suppose. Wmccrue (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Paul August. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

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

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

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Cybele

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

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

A beer for you!

I sense deeper currents amidst WP roadways. I'm a newb. Thanks for the help. Bjhodge8 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Salutaria Paul August ☎ 16:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

RE: Replacing em dashes with en dashes?

I apologize. I was using the mobile app on Android, and the em dashes rendered incorrectly. I misinterpreted them as en dashes, and so I used the snd template to "fix" them. It may have been a bug in the app, or it might have just been my eyes playing tricks on me. In either case, there was another fix in the same edit (an extra space before a ; ), but I have to go to class now. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horae&oldid=prev&diff=747812883 ReGuess (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

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

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Paul August.

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

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Endymion (mythology)

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

Does any reliable secondary source support this? Paul August ☎ 02:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Is really needed a secondary source for this? FábioEscorpião (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think so. Paul August ☎ 11:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Please search for "Endymion" on this page about god Hypnos (theoi.com): http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Hypnos.html This is enough?--FábioEscorpião (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a reasonable interpretation of Athenaeus' quote (given on the page you link) is that in Athenaeus' view at least, Licymnius represented Hypnos (Sleep) as loving Endymion, in a romantic/sexual way, but that is just my personal opinion and carries no weight. What we really need is some modern scholar who interprets the Licymnius fragment in this way. The cite that you link to is neither a reliable source, nor does it give any interpretation at all of the Licymnius fragment. Paul August ☎ 15:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Olive Byrne

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

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

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

Hello Paul August: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller talk 15:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thank you. And Happy Holidays to you too. Paul August ☎ 02:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)